Judges are not required to impose a sentence in a joint submission and failure to respect a common submission by a judge is not, in itself, grounds for reducing sentences on appeal. However, if a judge does not routinely respect the common words, that judge would impair the Crown`s ability to meaningfully induce the accused to plead guilty. Defence counsel would be detained if they were considered uns valuable to a particular judge, which would lead to otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will generally impose a sentence as part of a joint filing.  Sometimes the prosecutor agrees to reduce the charge or drop some of the multiple charges in exchange for the accused`s acceptance of the sentence. The accused, in the application, could argue with the penalty and aggravating and mitigating Circumstancing with the prosecutor who can accept or refuse. The request could also be made by the prosecutor. Arguments could be granted if the sentence, which could be applied in practice, is less than a five-year prison sentence after the reduction of one-third (so-called patteggiamento allargato, extensive negotiation); If the sentence imposed, after the reduction of one third, is less than two years` imprisonment or only a fine (so-called ”patteggiamento ristretto” limited negotiation), the accused may have other benefits, such as the suspended sentence and the erasure of the crime, if within five years of sentence the accused does not commit a similar crime. [P]lea-good deals are just as likely in strong and weak cases. Prosecutors only have to tailor the offer to the likelihood of a conviction in order to reach an agreement. Thus, weaker cases lead to more lenient and stronger arguments in relative harshness, but the two lead to agreement.
[… W]because the case is weak, the parties must rely on the tariff negotiations… But [the negotiation of royalties] is hardly an obstacle. Tariff negotiations in the event of weakness are not the exception; That is the norm across the country. So even if the evidence against the innocent is on average lower, the likelihood of pleas does not depend on guilt. The accused may also benefit from oral arguments. Advocacy agreements provide quick relief from the fear of prosecution because they shorten criminal proceedings. In addition, pleas generally give defendants less punishment than they would if they were convicted of all counts after a full trial. Suppose, for example, that an accused has been charged with driving under the influence and an accused of possession of a controlled substance intending to sell. If the accused goes to court and is convicted of both counts, he could be sentenced to several years in prison.
However, if the prosecutor agrees to plead guilty to sell the possession charge with intent, the prosecutor may drop the charge of driving under the influence. The end result would be a slightly shorter prison sentence than would result from the inclusion of the other census. Under the same agreement, the prosecutor may also agree to reduce the remaining charge in exchange for something from the accused. For example, the prosecutor may ask the accused to testify against the drug supplier or to set a case against the supplier by acting as a police officer. A reduced tax, z.B. of possession with the intention of selling in simple possession, would further reduce any possible prison sentence.