Abstract
The relevance of the fact that a matter could have been dealt with summarily, as a factor contributing to mitigation on sentence, remains ambiguous. Turner19 follows recent decisions calling into question the relevance of this consideration, and suggests that sentencing judges are not in error for omitting to mention the possibility that the offences could have been heard in the Local Court.20
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 16-18 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Amicus: Newsletter of the New South Wales Young Lawyers' Criminal Law Committee |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Keywords
- criminal law
- trials (assault and battery)
- administrative remedies
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Turner v R : relevance of summary jurisdiction at sentence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver