Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. A variation in civil law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.
In common law systems, the peremptory pleas are defensive pleas that set out special reasons for which a trial cannot proceed; they serve to bar the case entirely. Pleas in bar may be used in civil or criminal cases; they address the substantial merits of the case.
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
In law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.
Mandatory sentence requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
A discharge is a type of sentence imposed by a court whereby no punishment is imposed.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Deterrence in relation to criminal offending is the idea or theory that the threat of punishment will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in society. It is one of five objectives that punishment is thought to achieve; the other four objectives are denunciation, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation.
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the separation of powers in Australia.
The Penal Code of Singapore sets out general principles of the criminal law of Singapore, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating. The Penal Code does not define and list exhaustively all the criminal offences applicable in Singapore – a large number of these are created by other statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.
In Singapore, the offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person performs any act or publishes any writing that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority. An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence. The High Court and the Court of Appeal are empowered by section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to punish for contempt of court. This provision is statutory recognition of the superior courts' inherent jurisdiction to uphold the proper administration of justice. The Subordinate Courts are also empowered by statute to punish acts of contempt. Although Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore protects every citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court has held that the offence of scandalizing the court falls within the category of exceptions from the right to free speech expressly stipulated in Article 14(2)(a). Some commentators have expressed the view that the courts have placed excessive value on protecting the independence of the judiciary, and have given insufficient weight to free speech.
Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that forbids judicial “vindictiveness” from playing a role in the increased sentence a defendant receives after a new trial. In sum, due process requires that a defendant be “free of apprehension” of judicial vindictiveness. Time served for a new conviction of the same offense must be “fully credited,” and a trial judge seeking to impose a greater sentence on retrial must affirmatively state the reasons for imposing such a sentence.
S v Shilubane, an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and proactive in opting for such alternatives, and recommending that these alternatives be humane and balanced.
The totality principle is a common law principle which applies when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment. The principle was first formulated by David Thomas in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales:
The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'
R v De Simoni is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.
Postiglione v R also known as 'Postiglione' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on sentencing for sexual offences against children and the principle of parity. The Court held that sentences for offences involving the sexual abuse of children should be increased to reflect contemporary social understanding of the harms associated with such conduct, and Parliament's repeated signals to increase sentences through amendments to the Criminal Code. The court also held that the principle of parity, which requires similar sentences to be imposed for similar conduct, must be read in conjunction with the broader principle of proportionality.
