The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes

Anthony Gray; gerry elmore

The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes

Anthony Gray
, gerry elmore

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

The article considers whether a constitutional challenge to the validity of minimum mandatory sentencing regimes would be successful. It argues there should be a strong basis for challenge, given decisions such as Liyanage where a scheme providing for minimum mandatory sentencing was struck out on the basis of separation of powers principles. These principles are enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	37-47
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Judicial Administration
Volume	22
Issue number	1
Publication status	Published - 2012
Externally published	Yes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Access to Document

https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20123531

Cite this

@article{050cb4dfd60247448776337455e803db,

title = "The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes",

abstract = "The article considers whether a constitutional challenge to the validity of minimum mandatory sentencing regimes would be successful. It argues there should be a strong basis for challenge, given decisions such as Liyanage where a scheme providing for minimum mandatory sentencing was struck out on the basis of separation of powers principles. These principles are enshrined in the Australian Constitution.",

author = "Anthony Gray and gerry elmore",

year = "2012",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "37--47",

journal = "Journal of Judicial Administration",

issn = "1036-7918",

publisher = "Lawbook Co.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes

AU - Gray, Anthony

AU - elmore, gerry

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The article considers whether a constitutional challenge to the validity of minimum mandatory sentencing regimes would be successful. It argues there should be a strong basis for challenge, given decisions such as Liyanage where a scheme providing for minimum mandatory sentencing was struck out on the basis of separation of powers principles. These principles are enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

AB - The article considers whether a constitutional challenge to the validity of minimum mandatory sentencing regimes would be successful. It argues there should be a strong basis for challenge, given decisions such as Liyanage where a scheme providing for minimum mandatory sentencing was struck out on the basis of separation of powers principles. These principles are enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

M3 - Article

SN - 1036-7918

VL - 22

SP - 37

EP - 47

JO - Journal of Judicial Administration

JF - Journal of Judicial Administration

IS - 1

ER -

The Constitutionality of Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Regimes

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this