The tortured tale of criminal jurisdiction
| dc.contributor.author | Goode, M. | en |
| dc.date.issued | 1998 | en |
| dc.description.abstract | The word 'jurisdiction' is used in many ways in the law. In the conflict of laws, it tends to mean 'adjudicatory jurisdiction', that is, the power of a court to hear a case otherwise within its remit but which has non-domestic features. Adjudicatory jurisdiction is, however, something more than that when the case is criminal. Because criminal courts almost always apply domestic law to the trial and associated matters, criminal adjudicatory jurisdiction rolls up traditional conflicts jurisdiction and choice of law questions. This article examines a range of decisions on criminal jurisdiction with a view to giving a pragmatic view of how and why courts decide to take or decline criminal jurisdiction. A conflicts point of view is taken to the subject matter. In general terms, the common law is an unprincipled mess of ad hoc decisions with no sound theoretical underpinnings and containing no overarching or principled justifications beyond the expediency of the moment. | en |
| dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Matthew Goode | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | Melbourne University Law Review, 1998; 21:411-459 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0025-8938 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/2623 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Melbourne University Law Review | en |
| dc.rights | Copyright (c) 1997 Melbourne University Law Review Association, Inc. | en |
| dc.source.uri | http://www.austlii.edu.au.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1997/15.html | en |
| dc.title | The tortured tale of criminal jurisdiction | en |
| dc.type | Journal article | en |
| pubs.publication-status | Published | en |