The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda

The Safe Streets and Communities Act, like many other parts of the government’s crime agenda, relies on both prosecutorial discretion and a general judicial reluctance to strike down mandatory sentences. Successful Charter challenges to mandatory sentences are not impossible, as seen by Molloy J.’s...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Roach, Kent (Author)
Format: Electronic Book
Language:English
Published: 2012
In:Year: 2012
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866326341
003 DE-627
005 20250122054902.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866326341 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866326341 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Roach, Kent  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The Charter versus the Government’s Crime Agenda 
264 1 |c 2012 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The Safe Streets and Communities Act, like many other parts of the government’s crime agenda, relies on both prosecutorial discretion and a general judicial reluctance to strike down mandatory sentences. Successful Charter challenges to mandatory sentences are not impossible, as seen by Molloy J.’s recent decision in Smickle, but they will be difficult. In particular, the use of reasonable hypotheticals in section 12 analysis may be precluded by reliance on the assumption that longer mandatory sentences will not be applied when the Crown has the power to avoid such sentences by electing to prosecute the relevant crime by way of more lenient summary conviction procedures. Courts will the n be reluctant to review Crown elections as exercises of prosecutorial discretion. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide whether it wishes to maintain the level of judicial deference towards mandatory sentences that it has demonstrated in the past. This paper argues that a more traditional approach to proportionality that focuses on the relationship between particular crimes and punishment is more promising than newer approaches based on arbitrariness in relation to legislative purposes or gross disproportionality in the costs and benefits of legislative interventions, as conducted in the Insite case and Bedford. Following Smith and Ipeelee, a contextual approach to proportionality between crime and punishment that factors in offender characteristics should be taken rather than the more abstract approach taken in Morrisey. Should mandatory sentences be found to violate either section 7 or section 12 of the Charter, they will be difficult to justify under section 1. Policy analysis about the necessity and effects of mandatory sentences is best conducted under section 1 rather than within sections 7 and 12 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232638929.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4392972070 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866326341 
LOK |0 005 20231019043659 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE69292258 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw