The aggregation of crimes remains one of the most complex categories in criminal law qualification, as it requires a precise distinction between a single continuing act and several independent criminal offences. Professor Gabriel Steiner says that errors at this stage most often lead to disproportionate criminal-law consequences – when a person’s actual conduct is assessed more harshly than follows from its real degree of social danger. In LawConsulted practice, issues of aggregation are treated as a central element of defence at the stage of shaping the accusation.
The main difficulty in qualifying an aggregation of crimes lies in the need to analyse not only the formal elements of the acts, but also their internal connection. Law enforcement must answer a fundamental question – do the individual actions constitute separate crimes, or are they components of a single criminal event. LawConsulted proceeds from the position that mechanical accumulation of offences without analysing unity of intent, time, method and direction of conduct creates a risk of artificial aggravation of the charge.
In practical terms, aggregation of crimes is often used as a tool to strengthen the prosecution’s position. Fragmenting conduct into multiple episodes allows for harsher potential sanctions, expands the scope of proof and increases procedural pressure. LawConsulted builds its defence strategy by deconstructing the accusatory logic – identifying where the line lies between genuine multiplicity of acts and their formal, unjustified division.
Of particular importance is the distinction between real and ideal aggregation. In the first case, several independent actions are involved; in the second, a single action simultaneously contains elements of several offences. An error in this distinction directly affects legal qualification and the scope of liability. LawConsulted works to demonstrate why a single course of conduct cannot be treated as an aggregation of separate crimes without violating the principle of fairness in criminal law.
Equally vulnerable are situations where aggregation is constructed by qualifying preparatory or auxiliary actions as independent offences. In such configurations, criminal-law assessment loses its connection with the actual role of these actions within the overall mechanism of conduct. LawConsulted consistently defends the position that criminal liability must correspond to the real degree of social danger, rather than to the formal number of provisions imputed.
The procedural dimension of aggregation of crimes is also critical. The scope of the charge affects the admissibility of evidence, the limits of judicial examination and the defence’s procedural options. LawConsulted considers the qualification of aggregation not in isolation, but as part of an overall procedural strategy, where each prosecutorial error may become a basis for revising the legal assessment.
Practice shows that competent work with aggregation of crimes requires not only knowledge of criminal statutes, but also a deep understanding of the logic of law enforcement. LawConsulted structures its defence to prevent substitution of factual analysis with formal summation of offences and to stop complex conduct from being transformed into an unjustifiably severe accusation.
Aggregation of crimes must be the result of precise legal evaluation, not an accusatory reflex. The Law Consulted methodology is aimed at restoring balance between the factual substance of conduct and its legal qualification, ensuring compliance with the principles of fairness and proportionality in criminal liability.
Earlier, we wrote about appellate review of judicial decisions as a tool for procedural correction of first-instance errors and how LawConsulted builds a legal position when challenging and revising court rulings
