Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

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

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

36 Pages Posted: 1 Nov 2012  

Robert Diab

Thompson Rivers University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: November 1, 2012

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.

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

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2169514

Robert Diab (Contact Author)

Thompson Rivers University - Faculty of Law ( email )

900 McGill Road
Kamloops, British Columbia
Canada

Paper statistics

Downloads
149
Rank
165,872
Abstract Views
552