{"id":2964,"date":"2011-11-01T13:02:47","date_gmt":"2011-11-01T02:02:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=2964"},"modified":"2011-11-01T13:02:47","modified_gmt":"2011-11-01T02:02:47","slug":"australian-law-journal-update-december-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/11\/01\/australian-law-journal-update-december-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Law Journal update: December 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a085 Part 12) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

Unifying sentencing law: A principled approach to sentencing justice<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/em><\/strong> Steven Thomson<\/p>\n

This article examines parity of sentencing and identifies an underlying concept of fairness and consistency which can be described as a fundamental principle of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sentencing justice\u00e2\u20ac\u009d applicable to all aspects of sentencing law.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Abolishing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153high crimes and misdemeanours\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and the criminal processes of impeachment and attainder<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/em><\/strong> Graham McBain<\/p>\n

Previous articles in this journal have considered the crimes of treason, treason felony, sedition and criminal libel under English law, which crimes have been replicated in many Commonwealth countries and the United States. The articles have asserted that these crimes are obsolete, being superseded in most instances by more modern legislation. This article considers some of the most potent weapons the state possesses in its legal armoury in which Parliament itself is involved. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153High crimes and misdemeanours\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was the means employed to accuse royal favourites and powerful ministers who might otherwise avoid, or suborn, the ordinary courts. The usual process after 1399 was that of impeachment in which the House of Commons acted as the accuser and the House of Lords as judges. Where there was a risk that the Lords might not convict, a coup-de-gras could be administered by the Act of Attainder, in which the Commons, Lords and sovereign legislatively declared a person guilty of a crime punishable with death (or by an Act of Pains and Penalties in the case of a lesser penalty).This article argues that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153high crimes and misdemeanours\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, impeachment, Acts of Attainder and Acts of Pains and Penalties should be abolished. Further, that Parliaments should no longer seek to act as courts and that, in a fully-fledged democracy, there should be a clear separation between Parliament as the lawmaker and the courts as the interpreters, and enforcers, of the law. In this way much bad law and grave injustice arising from political trials may be avoided.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Mr Justice P W Young AO <\/strong><\/p>\n