scholarly journals The Constitutionality of Queensland's Recent (Legal) War on 'Bikies'

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-87
Author(s):  
Anthony Gray

The Queensland government has responded to a perceived ‘criminal problem’ with motorcycle clubs by directly naming and declaring 26 motorcycle clubs. It supplements earlier legislation that provided for a court to make such an order, upon defined criteria. The effect of the declaration is that it becomes a criminal offence for participants in the declared organisation to associate. The legislation provides for minimum mandatory gaol terms for various offences, including the act of associating. This article argues that there are serious constitutional questions surrounding such legislation, including on the basis of Chapter III of the Constitution, and the extent to which a court’s institutional integrity is compromised by legislation of this nature.

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-120
Author(s):  
James Krantz

When the requirements of an institution’s mission collides with the hopes, needs, and expectations of its people, leaders can face a painful choice. Either corrupt the institution by compromising its mission or betray those whose commitment and loyalty are essential. This tribute to Wesley Carr explores the notion of “virtuous betrayal” that was developed in an earlier paper and links it to issues of institutional integrity.


2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 755-757
Author(s):  
Ionut Vida Simiti

Breaking the limits of the risks for the human body, health or even the life of the patient, as assumed by the pharmaceutical producers, by using a drug off label, for its side effects, in another purpose or even against the purpose for which the drug was authorized by the National Agency of Medicine and Medical Devices, is not in itself illegal if the off label use has the common consent of both the doctor and the patient for a treatment and only for a treatment which, although a spread procedure, has little or no scientific support. But if the patient is subjected to unreasonable risks, endangering his body, health or life beyond the possible benefits of the treatment, without being informed about the lack of scientific support, the doctor is liable not only for malpractice (civil medical liability) but also for a criminal offence.


Author(s):  
Rudi Fortson

This chapter examines the legal and practical issues encountered by practitioners when dealing with unfitness to plead litigation. As the Law Commission for England and Wales has pointed out, defendants charged with a criminal offence may be unfit to plead or to stand trial for a variety of reasons, including difficulties resulting from mental illness, learning disability, developmental disorder, or communication impairment. Two issues are considered: (i) how might those defendants who are unfit be accurately identified; and (ii) what steps should be taken by legal practitioners and by the courts of criminal jurisdiction to cater for the interests of vulnerable defendants, victims, and society, and to maintain the integrity of the legal process as one that is fair and just? The chapter evaluates the reform proposals of the English Law Commission and assesses how the law could be improved for all those who are involved in dealing with the unfit to plead.


2010 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 434-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cath Crosby

This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.


Author(s):  
Olena Maslova ◽  

The article is sanctified to research of intercommunication of situation of feasance of criminal offence with other optional signs of objective side of composition of criminal offence. Traditionally, the situation of committing a criminal offense is attributed to the optional features of the objective side of the criminal offense. The situation of committing a criminal offense is a systemic formation, which includes a number of elements that give it a qualitative definition. Any specific situation is a certain structure with a variable number of elements that make it up. All elements of the situation are in close interaction with each other, which leads to the emergence of a particular situation. It is marked the place and time in the description of the fact of committing a criminal offense can be both separate, independent features of the objective side of the criminal offense, and components of the situation of committing a criminal offense, as the conditions that create the situation must be territorially and temporally defined. Influence relationship between the situation of a criminal offense with such an optional feature of the objective party as a way of committing a criminal offense, because often the way of committing a criminal offense along with the situation of committing a criminal offense is a sign of basic or qualified criminal offense. The situation of committing a criminal offense affects the choice of a particular method of committing a criminal offense, thereby determining the presence and degree of public danger of criminal encroachment. The situation of committing a criminal offense as a certain environment, the external environment determines the nature of a socially dangerous act and the means and tools of its commission. The possibility of a socially dangerous act causing harm depends not only on the act itself, but also on the situation in which it is carried out, which in turn determines the subject's choice of means or tools to commit such an act under appropriate conditions. In a particular case, the combination of the situation and the means or tools of committing a criminal offense, provides a qualitatively new level of public danger.


2021 ◽  
pp. 206622032110337
Author(s):  
Matthias Van Hall ◽  
Laura Cleofa-van Der Zwet

At least 1,900 Dutch detainees are detained abroad yearly. They are housed in foreign detention because they are accused of having committed a criminal offence in a country that is not their country of residence. This study used data regarding Dutch detainees who were supervised by the International Office of the Dutch Probation Service to examine detainees’ background characteristics and their offending behaviour after returning to the Netherlands. The findings show that 23% of the Dutch detainees reoffended within 2 years of release from foreign detention. Furthermore, several background characteristics, such as their age at release from foreign detention, are related to reoffending behaviour.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.


Temida ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 431-451
Author(s):  
Ana Batricevic

Misogynous and sexist violence against women, which often results in death, represents a global problem. Numerous international and national legal instruments are dedicated to the prevention and sanctioning of violence against women. However, the reality implies that existing mechanisms of penal reaction to femicide, as its most extreme and brutal form, should be re-examined. Having in mind the frequency and severe consequences of this criminal offence and the discriminatory character of the message that the state sends by tolerating it or inadequately punishing its perpetrators, the author attempts to define femicide, to present basic forms of state reaction to femicide in comparative law as well as to analyze the features of femicide as an independent criminal offence. Arguing for the incrimination of femicide as an independent criminal offence, or as a special form of aggravated murder, the author points out that such solution could contribute to more precise observation of this form of crime, to a better estimation of the quality of the state? s reaction to it and to its more efficient suppression.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document