Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/108368
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Caruso, D. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Crawford, N. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | University of New South Wales Law Journal, 2014; 37(1):312-348 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1447-7297 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/108368 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Post-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.statementofresponsibility | David Caruso, Nicholas Crawford | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | UNSW Law School | - |
dc.rights | © University of New South Wales | - |
dc.source.uri | http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=308236427159010;res=IELHSS | - |
dc.title | The executive institution of mercy in Australia: the case and model for reform | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 3 Law publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
RA_hdl_108368.pdf Restricted Access | Restricted Access | 345.97 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.