Contents

[close]

JCL 66 (2002) 425

Home truths about home detention
Dr Mirko Bagaric

The Victorian Parliament has recently introduced a Bill which implements home detention as a sentencing option. Home detention is an intuitively appealing reform. The logic behind the proposal seems obvious. Prisons are expensive to run. There are too many offenders in prison. So let's take the cost out of prison by turning the homes of offenders into prisons: classic, user-pays, cost-shifting economics. The level of superficial appeal of the argument in favour of home detention is matched only by the depth of the fallacies underpinning some of the fundamental premises. The most basic of which is the assumption that offenders who are candidates for the new sanction should be in detention (of any kind) in the first place. Further, the narrow objective of reducing imprisonment is misguided. It should not be elevated to a cardinal sentencing objective?otherwise total success could be achieved by simply opening the prison gates. There are also other concerns about the appropriateness of home detention. The degree of pain it inflicts in many cases is questionable and it may also violate the principle that punishment should not be inflicted on the innocent. After examining the arguments for and against home detention, this article suggests the approach that should be adopted to achieve enlightened and meaningful sentencing reform.

[close]

[close]

JCL 66 (2002) 445

The retrospective effect of s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
Gavin Dingwall

When the House of Lords delivered its judgment in Lambert, comment initially concerned the fact that their Lordships held that the legal burden of proof placed on defendants in s. 28 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contravened the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was indeed a major and potentially far-reaching finding, but it was in fact obiter dicta for the House also held that a defendant who was convicted prior to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force could not rely on that section in an appeal after the Act came into force, except in certain carefully prescribed circumstances. It is only now when subsequent case law has challenged this finding that its importance has been fully recognised. This article aims to respond to the academic neglect of this point through a careful scrutiny of the judgments in Lambert and will argue that, despite recent judicial criticism, the majority in Lambert deconstructed a complex statutory framework to expose Parliament's limited intention to 'bring rights home'.

[close]

[close]

JCL 66 (2002) 459

Hearsay: identification and admissions
Simon Cooper

This article seeks to explore the relationship between identification evidence and the rule against hearsay evidence. It focuses on how the courts have ignored or sought to evade application of the rule and concludes by examining a recent decision of the Court of Appeal that illustrates the lengths that courts will resort to in order to admit evidence perceived as being reliable.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 65 (2001) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 66 (2002) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 67 (2003) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 68 (2004) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 69 (2005) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 70 (2006) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 71 (2007) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 72 (2008) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 75 (2011) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 76 (2012) :   2   3   4   5   6

[close]