2013Unpublished venueRequires access

High Court upholds the validity of mandatory minimum sentences for people smugglers

Andrew Buckland, Megan Caristo

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In a 6:1 decision the High Court rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of a Commonwealth law requiring a sentencing court to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment on a person convicted of smuggling a group of 5 or more unlawful non-citizens into Australia.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In a 6:1 decision the High Court rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of a Commonwealth law requiring a sentencing court to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment on a person convicted of smuggling a group of 5 or more unlawful non-citizens into Australia.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In a 6:1 decision the High Court rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of a Commonwealth law requiring a sentencing court to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment on a person convicted of smuggling a group of 5 or more unlawful non-citizens into Australia.

Key concepts: Commonwealth, Imprisonment, Law, Constitutional court, Political science, High Court, Constitution

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
High Court upholds the validity of mandatory minimum sentences for people smugglers — Research Paper | ScholarLens