Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCaruso, D.-
dc.contributor.authorCrawford, N.-
dc.identifier.citationUniversity of New South Wales Law Journal, 2014; 37(1):312-348-
dc.description.abstractPost-conviction review procedures in Australia have been static despite significant reform in other Commonwealth countries. Responsibility for review and the powers to do so, collectively, the 'Institution of Mercy' ('IOM'), are vested in the executive of each Australian jurisdiction. We argue that the executive should not have those powers or responsibilities. To vest the executive with those powers ignores international reform, the history and development of the powers and, most importantly, is contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy. We consider recent reforms in South Australia are a model worthy of consideration by other Australian and common law jurisdictions.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDavid Caruso, Nicholas Crawford-
dc.publisherUNSW Law School-
dc.rights© University of New South Wales-
dc.titleThe executive institution of mercy in Australia: the case and model for reform-
dc.typeJournal article-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Law publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
  Restricted Access
Restricted Access345.97 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.