*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Criminal Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 44 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editor: Stephen Odgers SC<\/em><\/p>\n The Decision to Prosecute: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Prosecutorial Guidelines<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Natalie Hodgson, Judy Cashmore, Nicholas Cowdery, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, Patrick Parkinson, Martine B Powell and Rita Shackel<\/p>\n The decision whether to prosecute an individual can potentially impact a number of private and public interests. In Australia, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in each jurisdiction provides written prosecutorial guidelines relating to the decision to prosecute. Little scholarly attention has focused on how these guidelines differ in form and impact across jurisdictions. This article undertakes a text-based comparative analysis of the guidelines to identify the key similarities and differences in how the decision to prosecute is articulated in the policies of different Australian jurisdictions. This analysis shows that the tests used across Australia are broadly similar, while also identifying a number of differences. We highlight the need for empirical research on the decision to prosecute, to provide an insight into how the decision to prosecute is operationalised in practice, and how different formulations of the same or similar tests might impact the decision-making process.<\/p>\n The Devil You Know Is Not Better <\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images and Sentencing<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Marilyn Bromberg<\/p>\n The number of victims of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images (colloquially referred to as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153revenge porn\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) is significant and increasing. The victims may face severe psychological consequences, such as depression and they may commit suicide. This article is one of the few to examine the legislation in this area in both Australia and the United States. It is also one of the first articles written about the new criminal legislation in Western Australia concerning the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, and the first judgment concerning this legislation. This article alleges that the sentence handed down in the first judgment pursuant to the Western Australian legislation reflects outdated and concerning views regarding leniency when sentencing domestic violence offenders. This leniency does not reflect the seriousness of the crime nor the need for deterrence.<\/p>\n CASE AND COMMENT<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CRIMINAL LAW CASES<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Crim LJ Vol 44 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n