Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2169514
 
 

Footnotes (164)



 


 



Sentencing of Terrorism Offences after 9/11: A Comparative Review of Early Case Law


Robert Diab


Thompson Rivers University - Faculty of Law

November 1, 2012

TERRORISM, LAW AND DEMOCRACY, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, p. 347, 2013

Abstract:     
This paper provides an overview of an emerging jurisprudence on terrorism sentencing under post-9/11 law in Canada, the UK, and Australia. It seeks to advance three objectives. One is to highlight similarities and differences in approach among these jurisdictions. Another is to lend context to a set of Ontario Court of Appeal decisions calling for stiffer sentences, and to show why future sentences may often be longer as a result — but not always. Finally, the paper seeks to demonstrate how prosecutorial discretion on sentence limits can result in widely divergent outcomes at both the high and low end of the spectrum of culpability.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 36

Keywords: terrorism, sentencing, comparative, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, anti-terrorism, Khawaja, Amara, Khalid, Barot, Ibrahim, Lodhi

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: November 1, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Diab, Robert, Sentencing of Terrorism Offences after 9/11: A Comparative Review of Early Case Law (November 1, 2012). TERRORISM, LAW AND DEMOCRACY, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, p. 347, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2169514

Contact Information

Robert Diab (Contact Author)
Thompson Rivers University - Faculty of Law ( email )
900 McGill Road
Kamloops, British Columbia
Canada
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 282
Downloads: 64
Download Rank: 211,453
Footnotes:  164

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.328 seconds