DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED NATIONS Case No.: IT-96-21-A Date: 20 February 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED NATIONS Case No.: IT-96-21-A Date: 20 February 2001 UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT-96-21-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 20 February 2001 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: ENGLISH IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge David Hunt, Presiding Judge Fouad Riad Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia Judge Mohamed Bennouna Judge Fausto Pocar Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 20 February 2001 PROSECUTOR V Zejnil DELALIC, Zdravko MUCIC (aka “PAVO”), Hazim DELIC and Esad LANDŽO (aka “ZENGA”) (“^ELEBICI Case”) JUDGEMENT Counsel for the Accused: Mr John Ackerman and Ms Edina Rešidovi} for Zejnil Delalic Mr Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Mr Howard Morrison for Zdravko Mucic Mr Salih Karabdic and Mr Tom Moran for Hazim Delic Ms Cynthia Sinatra and Mr Peter Murphy for Esad Landžo The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr Upawansa Yapa Mr William Fenrick Mr Christopher Staker Mr Norman Farrell Ms Sonja Boelaert-Suominen Mr Roeland Bos CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2 II. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE STATUTE...................... 4 A. Whether the Trial Chamber Erred in Holding that the Armed Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Time Relevant to the Indictment was of an International Character..............................................................................4 1. What is the Applicable Law? .....................................................................................................................................................5 2. Has the Trial Chamber Applied the “Overall Control” Test? ........................................................................................... 10 3. The Nature of the Conflict Prior to 19 May 1992............................................................................................................... 11 4. The Nature of the Conflict After 19 May 1992................................................................................................................... 12 B. Whether the Bosnian Serbs Detained in the ^elebi}i Camp were Protected Persons Under Geneva Convention IV............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 1. What is the Applicable Law? .................................................................................................................................................. 17 2. Did the Trial Chamber Apply the Correct Legal Principles?............................................................................................ 25 3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 C. Whether Bosnia and Herzegovina was a Party to the Geneva Conventions at the Time of the Events Alleged in the Indictment.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 III. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE .................. 34 A. Whether Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions Falls Within the Scope of Article 3 of the Statute...... 36 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 36 2. Did the Trial Chamber Follow the Tadi} Jurisdiction Decision? .................................................................................... 41 B. Whether Common Article 3 is Applicable to International Armed Conflicts ............................................................. 42 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 42 2. Did the Trial Chamber Follow the Tadi} Jurisdiction Decision? .................................................................................... 46 C. Whether Common Article 3 Imposes Individual Criminal Responsibility .................................................................. 46 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 46 2. Did the Trial Chamber Apply the Correct Legal Principles? ........................................................................................... 52 IV. GROUNDS OF APPEAL CONCERNING COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY .................. 54 A. The Ninth Ground of Appeal of Muci}................................................................................................................................... 54 1. De Facto Authority as a Basis for a Finding of Superior Responsibility in International Law................................. 55 2. The Trial Chamber’s Factual Findings................................................................................................................................. 59 3. Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 4. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 B. The Prosecution Grounds of Appeal....................................................................................................................................... 64 1. Mental Element – “Knew or had Reason to Know” .......................................................................................................... 64 2. Whether Delali} Exercised Superior Responsibility.......................................................................................................... 73 3. Deli}’s Acquittal under Article 7(3)...................................................................................................................................... 96 V. UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT OF CIVILIANS ................................................................. 105 A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................105 i Case No.: IT-96-21-A 20 February 2001 B. The Prosecution appeals ...........................................................................................................................................................112 1. Article 7(3) Liability..............................................................................................................................................................112 2. Article 7(1) Liability..............................................................................................................................................................113 C. Muci}’s Appeal............................................................................................................................................................................125 D. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................131 VI. MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE SAME ACTS......................................... 132 A. Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................................................135 1. Cumulative Charging.............................................................................................................................................................135 2. Cumulative Convictions........................................................................................................................................................135 B. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................144 C. Impact on Sentencing ................................................................................................................................................................146 VII. DELIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALLEGING ERRORS OF FACT ............................. 148 A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................148 B. Issues 9 and 10: Convictions under Counts 1 and 2 .........................................................................................................149 C. Issues 11 and 12: Convictions Under Counts 3 and 4......................................................................................................156 D. Issues 13 and 14: Convictions Under Counts 18 and 19.................................................................................................165 E. Issues 15 and 16: Convictions under Counts 21 and 22.................................................................................................169
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law Richard J
    New England Journal of Public Policy Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 8 9-21-2003 Engendering Accountability: Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law Richard J. Goldstone Constitutional Court of South Africa Estelle A. Dehon Oxford University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp Part of the History of Gender Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Military, War and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Goldstone, Richard J. and Dehon, Estelle A. (2003) "Engendering Accountability: Gender Crimes Under International Criminal Law," New England Journal of Public Policy: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol19/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in New England Journal of Public Policy by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Engendering Gender Crimes Accountability Under International Criminal Law Richard J. Goldstone Estelle A. Dehon Gender crimes, such as rape, sexual assault, sexual slavery, and forced prostitu- tion, have always been perpetrated during war, yet the laws of war have been slow to acknowledge these crimes and to bring their perpetrators to justice. This article examines the response of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to this lacuna in international law, and ana- lyzes the mainly positive developments they have made in this area in relation to the definition of rape and to the prosecution of gender crimes as crimes against humanity, war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and geno- cide.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 AUG 2015 COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICAL the REGISTRY SYDNEY ELECTRONIC ENERGY INFORMATION POSTAL PLUMBING and ALLIED SERVICES UNION of AUSTRALIA Third Respondent
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA BRISBANE REGISTRY NOB 36 OF 2015 On Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA First Appellant DIRECTOR AND: FAIR WORK BUILDING INDUSTRY INSPECTORATE First Respondent CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MINING AND ENERGY UNION FILED Second Respondent 12 AUG 2015 COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICAL THE REGISTRY SYDNEY ELECTRONIC ENERGY INFORMATION POSTAL PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA Third Respondent SUBMISSIONS OF THE AMICI CURIAE Filed on behalf of the Amici Curiae by: Date of this document: 12 August 2015 Australian Government Solicitor File ref: 15082660 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT 2600 OX 5678 Canberra Telephone: 02 6253 7424 Lawyer's E-mail: [email protected] Facsimile: 02 6253 7384 17343093 . ' PART I FORM OF SUBMISSIONS 1. These submissions are in a form suitable for publication on the Internet. PART II ISSUES 2. The issues that arise on the appeal are: (a) whether the principles derived from NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285 (NW Frozen Foods) and Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 41, 993 (Mobil Oil) remain good law, including as a consequence of the decision in Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R (2014) 253 CLR 58 (Barbaro); 10 (b) the proper role in a civil penalty hearing for submissions as to penalty (including joint submissions as to an agreed penalty), including whether there is a constraint on the making and consideration of submissions as to appropriate penalty amounts (including on an agreed basis), in light of the decision in Barbaro.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Judge WJ Cummings
    In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R v Dockman, 2017 ABPC 310 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and- Michael Louis Dockman Accused Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Judge W. J. Cummings Introduction [1] An owner/operator of a water treatment plant providing drinking water to a community of residential acreages is sentenced to fines in the global amount of $49,000 allocated on six counts after being found to have contravened various provisions of an Enforcement Order issued under the authority of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E - 12 as amended ("EPEA"). [2] The sentencing framework specific to environmental offences set out in R v Terroco Industries Limited, 2005 ABCA 141(CanLII), ("Terroco") is considered and applied. The principle of totality as it applies to sentences constituting fines in regulatory matters as set out in Alberta (Health Services) v Bhanji, 2017 ABCA 126 (CanLII), ("Bhanji'') is also considered. Convictions [3] This is the Court's sentencing following Michael Louis Dockman being found guilty (R v Dockman, 2017 ABPC 112) on six counts following contraventions of various provisions of an Enforcement Order issued under the authority of the EPEA under which he was operating a water treatment plant, (the "Waterworks System") servicing various residents occupying residential acreage properties in the Sharp Hill subdivision located in the vicinity of Airdrie, Alberta, (the "Sharp Hill residents"). All offences are characterized as regulatory, strict liability offences. Page2 [4] The Court may refer to Mr. Dockrnan by his surname for ease of reference in this sentencing and not out of disrespect.
    [Show full text]
  • Primera Sentencia De La Corte Penal Internacional Sobre La Reparación A
    Revista Española de Derecho Internacional Sección NOTAS © 2013 Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales ISSN: 0034-9380, vol. LXV/2 Madrid, julio-diciembre 2013 págs. 209-226 PRIMERA SENTENCIA DE LA CORTE PENAL INTERNACIONAL SOBRE REPARACIÓN A LAS VÍCTIMAS: CASO THE PROSECUTOR C. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO, 7 DE AGOSTO DE 2012* Ana Gemma LÓ P EZ MAR T ÍN Profesora Titular de Derecho internacional público Universidad Complutense de Madrid SUMARIO: 1. INTRODUCCIÓN.—2. BREVE RESEÑA DEL COMPLEJO PROCESO CONTRA THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO.—3. LA SENTENCIA DE 7 DE AGOSTO DE 2012 SOBRE LOS PRINCIPIOS Y EL PROCESO DE REPARACIÓN A LAS VÍCTIMAS DE LOS CRÍMENES DE THOMAS LUBANGA.—3.1. El derecho de las víctimas a la reparación.—3.2. Los princi- pios de reparación establecidos.—3.3. El proceso a seguir.—4. ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES ACERCA DE LA SENTENCIA SOBRE REPARACIONES. 1. INTRODUCCIÓN El año 2012 ha sido un año emblemático para el Derecho Penal Interna- cional; y ello, porque la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) —casi una década después de su puesta en marcha 1 — ha dictado dos sentencias históricas, que suponen un importante avance tanto en la consolidación de la responsabili- dad penal internacional del individuo, como en la consagración del derecho a la reparación de las víctimas de los crímenes cometidos por estos. El 14 de marzo de 2012, la Sala de Primera Instancia de la CPI consideró a Thomas Lubanga Dyilo culpable del crimen de guerra de «reclutamiento o ∗ Trabajo realizado en el marco del Proyecto I+D+I (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) referencia DER2010-15605, subprograma JURI.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reporting Guide for Journalists Court Reporting Guide for Journalists
    Court reporting guide for Journalists Court reporting guide for Journalists Court reporting guide for Journalists Published by Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council, June 2019 © Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council 2019 ISBN-13: 978-0-9871456-8-0 This guide is available for download from the Council’s website: www.sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au This guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt this guide, as long as you attribute the work to the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council, Court reporting guide for Journalists. To view a copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Disclaimer: The content of this guide is for information only. If you have a legal problem, you should seek legal advice from a lawyer. The guide should not be relied upon as legal advice and if you have a specific legal problem, you should seek legal advice about your own particular circumstances. While all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this guide, no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions or any loss, damage or injury, financial or otherwise, suffered by any person acting or relying on information contained in or omitted from this publication. This guide reflects the law as at 30 June 2019. The Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council is established by section 198 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Its functions are detailed in section 199 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Further information: Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council GPO Box 2360, Brisbane Qld 4001 Tel: (07) 3738 9499 Email: [email protected] With thanks to Anne Stanford, Principal Information Officer, Queensland SDC, and Tony Keim, Queensland Law Society, for their contributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Failing to Surrender to Bail Bail Act 1976 (Section 6) ANNEX C ANNEX
    Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 71 Failing to Surrender to Bail Bail Act 1976 (section 6) ANNEX C ANNEX Triable either way Maximum: 12 months’ custody Crown Court, 3 months’ custody magistrates’ court Offence range: Discharge – 12 months’ custody 72 Breach Offences Guideline Consultation Failing to Surrender to Bail STEP ONE Determining the offence category The court should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors listed in the tables below. In order to determine the category the court should assess culpability and harm. Culpability A Deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice B Factors in categories A and C not present C Breach just short of reasonable excuse Harm The level of harm is determined by weighing up all the factors of the case to determine the harm that has been caused or was intended to be caused. Category 1 Failure to attend Crown Court hearing results in substantial delay and/or interference with the administration of justice Category 2 Failure to attend magistrates’ court hearing results in substantial delay and/or interference with the administration of justice* Category 3 Factors in categories 1 and 2 not present * In particularly serious cases where the failure to attend is in the magistrates’ court and the consequences of the delay have a severe impact on victims and witnesses the case should be committed to the Crown Court pursuant to s.6(6)a Bail Act 1976 and the Crown Court should sentence the case according to the range in Category A1. Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 73 STEP TWO Starting point and category range Having determined the category at step one, the court should use the corresponding starting point to reach a sentence within the category range from the appropriate sentence table below.
    [Show full text]
  • The Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Bill 1997
    ELECTRONIC VERSION THE PENALTIES AND SENTENCES (SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 1997 LEGISLATION BULLETIN NO 4/97 KAREN SAMPFORD QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Publications and Resources Section BRISBANE March 1997 ISSN 1324-860X ISBN 0 7242 7350 1 This Legislation Bulletin was prepared to assist Members in their consideration of the Bill in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. It should not be considered as a complete guide to the legislation and does not constitute legal advice. The Bulletin reflects the legislation as introduced. The Queensland Legislation Annotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or the Bills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should be consulted to determine whether the Bill has been enacted and if so, whether the legislation as enacted reflects amendments in Committee. Readers are also directed to the relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Queensland Parliament. © Queensland Parliamentary Library, 1997 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library. Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Publications & Resources, Queensland Parliamentary Library, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane. Director: Ms Mary Seefried. (Tel:
    [Show full text]
  • IIDH in the Americas Bi-Weekly Newsletter of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights No
    IIDH in the Americas Bi-weekly newsletter of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights No. 252 – March 1 to 15, 2014 Contents: Honoring the work of former President Jimmy Carter. Panama City. The presence of the IIHR in South America. Montevideo, Uruguay. The IIHR signs a cooperation agreement with the Ombudsman Office. Bogotá, Colombia A UNIORE mission observes the second round of the elections. San Salvador, El Salvador. A UNIORE mission observes the Colombian legislative elections. Bogota, Colombia. Exchange of electoral experiences between Latin American and Arab countries. México City. The IIHR continues to promote education in human rights. Montevideo, Uruguay. Honoris causa degree to Elizabeth Odio Benito. Heredia, Costa Rica. IIHR and UARIV prepare commemoration with victims of conflict. Bogotá, Colombia. Conference on “The Rights of the Victims.” Bogotá, Colombia. Donation of institutional publications to the indigenous population of Bribri. Salitre, Buenos Aires de Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Announcement to participate in the international conference on electoral studies. México, D.F.; San José, Costa Rica. Follow our activities in Facebook. ************************************************************ Honoring the work of former President Jimmy Carter Panama City. March 14, a ceremony was held to honor the work of President Jimmy Carter of the United States. It was organized jointly by the Electoral Tribunal of Panama and the IIHR to recognize Mr. Carter’s commitment to human rights, democracy, solidarity, the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the world and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. High electoral authorities, former presidents of Panama, members of the diplomatic corps and interested public, attended the event. José Thompson, Executive Director and Director of its Center for Electoral Promotion and Assistance (CAPEL), conveyed the greetings of Claudio Grossman, President of the Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Resolution 808: a Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations Daniel B
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 25 Article 8 Issue 2 Notes and Comments January 1995 Security Council Resolution 808: A Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations Daniel B. Pickard Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel B. Pickard, Security Council Resolution 808: A Step Toward a Permanent International Court for the Prosecution of International Crimes and Human Rights Violations, 25 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1995). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol25/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pickard: International Criminal Court COMMENT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 808: A STEP TOWARD A PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION The United Nations recently created international tribu­ nals to prosecute international crimes and human rights viola­ tions in Rwandal and Yugoslavia.2 On February 22, 1993, the United Nations' Security Council passed Resolution 808 which proclaimed that "an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1991."3 1. S.C. Res. 995, U.N. SCOR, 3453rd mtg. at 2, U.N. Doc. SC/4327 (1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights
    INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVISORY OPINION OC-25/18 OF 30 MAY 2018 REQUESTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR THE INSTITUTION OF ASYLUM AND ITS RECOGNITION AS A HUMAN RIGHT IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF PROTECTION (INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE OF ARTICLES 5, 22.7 AND 22.8 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Inter-American Court", "the Court" or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following Judges*: Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Chairman; Eduardo Vio Grossi, Vice President; Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Judge; Elizabeth Odio Benito, Judge, and L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire, Judge; Also present: Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, in accordance with Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the American Convention" or "the Convention") and with Rules 70 to 75 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter "the Regulations"), the Court issues the following Advisory Opinion, which is structured as follows: * Judge Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni did not attend the 124th Regular Session of the Inter-American Court for reasons of force majeure, which was accepted by the plenary. For this reason, he did not participate in the deliberation and signing of this advisory opinion. 1 Table of Contents I. THE APPLICATION FOR CONSULTATION 3 II. COURT PROCEEDINGS 7 III. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 11 A. General considerations 11 B. The formal requirement to specify the provisions to be interpreted 15 C. Ratione personae competence 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Magistrate's Notes
    Chief Magistrate’s Notes (CMN) A Evidence – Flight Abuse of process Evidence – Fresh Evidence Adjournment Evidence – Identification Age Evidence – Privilege Animals Evidence – Protected Witness Assault Evidence – Rules Apprehended Bias Evidence – Search B Evidence – Search – Emergent Bail Evidence – Search – Mobile phone Barbaro Evidence – Search – Reasonable suspicion Bias Evidence – Search – Vehicle Body Corporate Evidence – Similar Facts C Evidence – Telephone Child Protection Evidence – Victim Impact Statement Civil Evidence – Weissensteiner Confessions Executive Liability Complaints Exhibits Consciousness of guilt Extortion Contempt Extradition Convictions F Costs – Civil Fair Trading Costs – Domestic Violence Fisheries Act Costs – Justices Act Forfeiture Costs – Peace and Good Behaviour Act Fraud Cross-examination G D GBH Defence – Accident I Defence – Consent Intent Defence – Domestic Discipline Interpreter Defence – Emergency J Defence – Exercise of right of way or easement Joinder Defence – Honest Claim L Defence – Mistake Legal Practitioner Defence – Of a dwelling Liquor Defence – Provocation M Digital devices Media Disclosure Mental Health Dishonesty N Domestic Violence Domestic Violence – Necessary or desirable Natural Justice Domestic Violence – Retrospective No Case Drugs O E Obstruct Elections Voting P Evidence Parties Evidence – Admissions Peace and Good Behaviour Act Evidence – Circumstantial Peaceful Assembly Evidence - DNA Police Evidence – Experts Practice Practice – Justices Act Practice – Exhibits Page | 1 Practice
    [Show full text]
  • Reduction in Penalties at Sentence
    Reduction in Penalties at Sentence August 2009 A report of the NSW Sentencing Council A report of the NSW Sentencing Council pursuant to section 100J (1) (c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the private or professional views of individual Council members or the views of their individual organisations. A decision of the majority is a decision of the Council— Schedule 1A, clause 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Published in Sydney by the: NSW Sentencing Council Box 6 GPO SYDNEY 2001 www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sentencingcouncil Email: [email protected] ISSN: 978-1-921590-15-3 CONTENTS The Council Officers of the Council Acknowledgements Table of Cases Table of Legislation RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: DISCOUNT FOR PLEA OF GUILTY CHAPTER 3: ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES CHAPTER 4: OTHER DISCOUNTING FACTORS IN MITIGATION AT SENTENCE CHAPTER 5: APPLYING DISCOUNTING FACTORS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCING EXERCISE AS A WHOLE CHAPTER 6: CHARGE NEGOTIATIONS CHAPTER 7: THE TOTALITY PRINCIPLE AND THE USE OF FORM 1 CHAPTER 8: ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL ANNEXURES: A - CASE STUDY: MURDER IN NSW B - SUBMISSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY THE COUNCIL The Hon James Wood AO QC, Chairperson The Hon John Dunford QC, Deputy Chairperson Mr Howard Brown OAM, Victims of Crimes Assistance League Mr N R Cowdery AM QC, Director of Public Prosecutions Assistant Commissioner Paul Carey, NSW Police1 Mrs Jennifer Fullford, Community Representative Ms Martha Jabour, Homicide Victims Support Group Mr Norman Laing, NSW Aboriginal Land Council Mr Ken Marslew AM, Enough is Enough Anti-Violence Movement Mr Mark Ierace SC, Senior Public Defender Ms Jennifer Mason, Department of Community Services2 Ms Penny Musgrave, Department of Justice and Attorney General3 Mr Ronald Woodham, PSM, Department of Corrective Services 1.
    [Show full text]