Your search

"This casebook provides a thorough examination of all traditional conflict-of-law issues, including jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement of judgments."-- Provided by publisher.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Recent amendments have underscored punitive aspects in sentencing. This is apparent in the multiplication of mandatory minimum sentences, restriction of conditional sentences, limitation of credit for pre-sentence custody, and doubling the victim surcharge with no discretion for exemption. Apart from their specific effects, these amendments signal a reorientation of the principles and objectives of sentencing expressed in Part XXIII of the Code and in the jurisprudence that has evolved since 1996. They diminish the importance of rehabilitative and restorative aims in favour of greater retribution. As a result, they alter several principles of sentencing that remain in the Code as they were enacted in 1995 - including proportionality, individualization and totality. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Over the last century, all common law countries have experienced a movement away from a highly discretionary sentencing environment to one in which judicial discretion is more constrained. (For general discussion of structured sentencing, see chapter 6 of A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth and J. V. Roberts (eds), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (3rd edn, Oxford: Hart, 2009).) Some jurisdictions have transformed their sentencing environments by introducing relatively inflexible and tightly binding guideline schemes. Others have taken a middle ground – creating advisory guidance schemes – while a third category has resisted all attempts to structure judicial discretion. This essay describes and compares the divergent histories of two jurisdictions – Canada, and England and Wales – as they have confronted the challenge of structuring sentencing. Despite similarities in the way that sentencing is approached in the two countries they have taken remarkably divergent paths over the past 25 years – and not in the directions that might have been anticipated back in the mid 1980s. After a promising start in that decade, Canada has rejected the adoption of sentencing guidelines, and elected to retain its traditional, highly discretionary approach to sentencing. In contrast, England and Wales has slowly, but surely, adopted a comprehensive and relatively binding set of guidelines, although this outcome also seemed unlikely in 1988.

Three decades of research on public perceptions in Canada has fundamentally shifted academic and policy approaches to understanding public views of crime and punishment. The contributions of Anthony Doob and his colleagues have influenced methodology, such as the inclusion of experimental design, and have supported an underlying commitment to understanding the public's view of crime and its relationship to policy. This article examines key findings coming out of this body of research and the impact of this work on current criminal justice policy in Canada. Despite the significance of this body of work on public perceptions research, the impact on current criminal justice policy appears to be diminishing.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

"This text is aimed at law school and criminology courses that offer a comprehensive analysis of sentencing law and principles in Canada."-- Provided by publisher.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

"How do judges sentence? In particular, how important is judicial discretion in sentencing? Sentencing guidelines are often said to promote consistency, but is consistency in sentencing achievable or even desirable? Whilst the passing of a sentence is arguably the most public stage of the criminal justice process, there have been few attempts to examine judicial perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the sentencing process. Through interviews with Scottish judges and by presenting a comprehensive review and analysis of recent scholarship on sentencing ? including a comparative study of UK, Irish and Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence ? this book explores these issues to present a systematic theory of sentencing. Through an integration of the concept of equity as particularised justice, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (or 'practical wisdom'), the concept of value pluralism, and the focus of appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth on sentencing by way of 'instinctive synthesis', it is argued that judicial sentencing methodology is best viewed in terms of a phronetic synthesis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. The author concludes that sentencing is best conceptualised as a form of case-orientated, concrete and intuitive decision making; one that seeks individualisation through judicial recognition of the profoundly contextualised nature of the process" --publisher's description.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Introduction: This review provides a national summary of what is currently known about the Canadian opioid crisis with respect to opioid-related deaths and harms and potential risk factors as of December 2017. Methods: We reviewed all public-facing opioid-related surveillance or epidemiological reports published by provincial and territorial ministries of health and chief coroners’ or medical examiners’ offices. In addition, we reviewed publications from federal partners and reports and articles published prior to December 2017. We synthesized the evidence by comparing provincial and territorial opioid-related mortality and morbidity rates with the national rates to look for regional trends. Results: The opioid crisis has affected every region of the country, although some jurisdictions have been impacted more than others. As of 2016, apparent opioid-related deaths and hospitalization rates were highest in the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and in both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Nationally, most apparent opioid-related deaths occurred among males; individuals between 30 and 39 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion. Current evidence suggests regional age and sex differences with respect to health outcomes, especially when synthetic opioids are involved. However, differences between data collection methods and reporting requirements may impact the interpretation and comparability of reported data. Conclusion: This report identifies gaps in evidence and areas for further investigation to improve our understanding of the national opioid crisis. The Public Health Agency of Canada will continue to work closely with the provinces, territories and national partners to further refine and standardize national data collection, conduct special studies and expand information-sharing to improve the evidence needed to inform public health action and prevent opioid-related deaths and harms.

This chapter compares and contrasts the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales with the corresponding sentencing guidelines developed but not yet implemented in New Zealand. In this essay, the objectives of a sentencing guidelines system are explored. The text explores what is required to achieve these objectives and considers on this basis how successful each jurisdiction’s scheme is likely to be. We conclude that the New Zealand model has many more of the ingredients for success than the model in England and Wales.

This article raises a dissenting voice against the widespread scholarly view that discretion in remedying legislative infringement of rights can be dialogic, gentle, and cooperative. It focuses on delayed and prospective orders under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the South African Bill of Rights. Scholars have neglected remedial discretion’s significant negative consequences. It harms litigants and other right bearers, potentially producing perverse systemic effects. In particular, keeping a rights-infringing criminal prohibition temporarily in force is unlikely to achieve legal certainty and risks undermining the rule of law. Far from being restrained and deferential, remedial discretion increases the reach of judicial decision-making and enables judges to shape new law more boldly. The widespread exercise of remedial discretion calls for refashioning the conception of a bill of rights’ place in a supreme constitution. If delayed or prospective remedies are sometimes appropriate, they are not something to celebrate.

This book comprises a selection of papers presented at a conference in honour of John Avery Jones which was held on 22 and 23 April 2010 in London.Why this book?This book comprises a selection of papers presented at a conference in honour of John Avery Jones which was held on 22 and 23 April 2010 in London. The conference brought together experts in international and UK domestic taxation from around the world to celebrate Dr. Avery Jones's contribution to the fiscal arena to mark his 70th birthday and forthcoming retirement as Judge of the First and Upper Tier Tax Tribunals.The participators of the conference were drawn almost exclusively from three groups: the International Tax Group (ITG) of which Dr. Avery Jones was one of the founder members; the Advisory Group on the OECD Model; and UK tax academics. The papers reflect Dr. Avery Jones's many areas of interest, covering both international taxation and various aspects of UK domestic taxation. Many of the papers drew their inspiration from Dr. Avery Jones's academic writings or from his contribution as a tax judge.