The United Nations Human Rights Committee's views about the legitimate parameters of the preventive detention of serious sex offenders

Patrick Keyzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Legislation that is presently in place in a majority of the Australian States adopts the radical approach of using prison as a venue for the preventive detention of sex offenders after the conclusion of their prison sentences. The High Court of Australia upheld the constitutional validity of Queensland's legislation in 2004. But the United Nations Human Rights Committee has recently found that the preventive detention regimes in the Queensland and New South Wales (and, by implication, Western Australia and Victoria) are in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for guarantees of due process and prohibits arbitrary detention and the retroactive infliction of increased punishment. This article reviews the Committee's decisions, and examines their implications.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)283-291
Number of pages9
JournalCriminal Law Journal
Volume34
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

preventive detention
offender
UNO
human rights
legislation
political right
imprisonment
civil rights
correctional institution
penalty
guarantee
regime

Cite this

@article{262278e7b148484ca6b34fdc1dadc001,
title = "The United Nations Human Rights Committee's views about the legitimate parameters of the preventive detention of serious sex offenders",
abstract = "Legislation that is presently in place in a majority of the Australian States adopts the radical approach of using prison as a venue for the preventive detention of sex offenders after the conclusion of their prison sentences. The High Court of Australia upheld the constitutional validity of Queensland's legislation in 2004. But the United Nations Human Rights Committee has recently found that the preventive detention regimes in the Queensland and New South Wales (and, by implication, Western Australia and Victoria) are in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for guarantees of due process and prohibits arbitrary detention and the retroactive infliction of increased punishment. This article reviews the Committee's decisions, and examines their implications.",
author = "Patrick Keyzer",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "283--291",
journal = "Criminal Law Journal",
issn = "0314-1160",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "5",

}

The United Nations Human Rights Committee's views about the legitimate parameters of the preventive detention of serious sex offenders. / Keyzer, Patrick.

In: Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2010, p. 283-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The United Nations Human Rights Committee's views about the legitimate parameters of the preventive detention of serious sex offenders

AU - Keyzer, Patrick

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Legislation that is presently in place in a majority of the Australian States adopts the radical approach of using prison as a venue for the preventive detention of sex offenders after the conclusion of their prison sentences. The High Court of Australia upheld the constitutional validity of Queensland's legislation in 2004. But the United Nations Human Rights Committee has recently found that the preventive detention regimes in the Queensland and New South Wales (and, by implication, Western Australia and Victoria) are in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for guarantees of due process and prohibits arbitrary detention and the retroactive infliction of increased punishment. This article reviews the Committee's decisions, and examines their implications.

AB - Legislation that is presently in place in a majority of the Australian States adopts the radical approach of using prison as a venue for the preventive detention of sex offenders after the conclusion of their prison sentences. The High Court of Australia upheld the constitutional validity of Queensland's legislation in 2004. But the United Nations Human Rights Committee has recently found that the preventive detention regimes in the Queensland and New South Wales (and, by implication, Western Australia and Victoria) are in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for guarantees of due process and prohibits arbitrary detention and the retroactive infliction of increased punishment. This article reviews the Committee's decisions, and examines their implications.

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 283

EP - 291

JO - Criminal Law Journal

JF - Criminal Law Journal

SN - 0314-1160

IS - 5

ER -