Sentencing Hearings in English Crown Courts

English Juvenile Courts

some extent, but it is impossible to believe that they can account for such wide variations as these. They can only be taken as indicating a regrettable lack of any common standard. If the majority of courts arc right in concluding that at least half the offenders should be put on probation, then the courts that make as little use of it as some of those just mentioned must be falling below the ...

The Sentencing of Indigenous Offenders in the Lower Courts: A Study of Three Australian Jurisdictions

The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and are not necessarily those of the Council.

Unilateral Mistake in the English Courts: Reasserting the Traditional Approach

In the case of Statoil A.S.A. v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P., Aikens J. has reasserted the traditional principles of English law governing unilateral mistake. On one level, it is an unexceptional decision. It applies the well-settled law relating to unilateral mistake, based on long-established authority and as a reflection of the approach taken recently by the Court of Appeal to the sig...

Sentencing Illicit Drug Traffickers: How do the Courts Handle Random Sampling Issues?

During the last two years, several major developments in federal sentencing have taken place. It all started in June 2000 with Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which Justice O’Connor, in dissent, termed a “watershed in constitutional law.” Prior to Apprendi, a judge would sentence a convicted drug trafficker to imprisonment using the preponderance standard of proof on the quantities of drugs seized. ...

The Desocialization of the Courts, Sentencing Decision Support and Plea Bargaining