Sentences with phrase «judicial discretion at»

They have a motive to trash anything that suggests that judicial discretion at sentencing is a bad thing.

Particularly interesting is how his dissent highlights and explores one of the great puzzles emerging from this line of cases: When, and why, does the exercise of judicial discretion at sentencing violate the Sixth Amendment?

The legislation, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, improves judicial discretion at sentencing for low level offenders and helps inmates successfully reenter society, while tightening penalties for violent criminals and preserving key prosecutorial tools for law enforcement.

Not exact matches

At many other points in the judicial process, discretion rules, and arbitrary or incorrect decisions are possible.

Associate Professor of Journalism Rich Hanley was at one of these forums and recalls that Lahey felt the judge in the case had used wide judicial discretion.

Known as «judicial discretion,» judges can decide what's fair in light of the facts and evidence at hand.

Four retired senior judges have warned Peers that judicial independence is at risk from plans to give judges discretion over how much weight to attach to European Court of Justice decisions after Brexit.

Is this «Judicial Discretion» at work?

All noted commentary has stressed the importance of anti-SLAPP legislation providing a process for the efficient identification and dismissal of applicable cases, while at the same time, providing sufficient judicial discretion to allow for the variety of circumstances under which it will be applied.

They are: to give judges discretion on whether to grant permission for a challenge if they are of «exceptional public interest»; and to allow judicial committees to decide the level at which individuals who fund cases will have to be identified.

It's cheaper to bring cases to trial but the uncertainty due to judicial discretion and permissive procedure can be so high that many cases are still not worth litigating at all.

As an aside, on granting permission to appeal (as an application for permission to appeal had to be issued as the Judge had rejected the oral application for permission to appeal at the original hearing), the Court of Appeal had recognised that it was unusual for an exercise of judicial discretion to be appealed but stated that the decision of His Honour Judge Purle QC was highly speculative as to «border on the Micawberism» (which those of you versed in classic literature will recognise as a reference to a character in the Charles Dickens novel, David Copperfield, who continually holds blind faith that «something will turn up»).

Nothing in the safety valve prevents judges from sentencing prisoners at or above the mandatory minimum even if they are eligible for the safety valve, but simply allows judicial discretion to ensure that prison resources are being used where they can best protect public safety, and not wasted on nonviolent, low - level drug offenders.

Accordingly, while the right to damages for an accident is vested at the time of the accident, it can be differentiated from the entitlement to prejudgment interest as it's subject to judicial discretion, meaning that there is no inherent right to any rate of interest until it is determined by a judge.

The majority held that decisions about professional discipline are akin to prosecutorial discretion, such that errors «must likely approach an abuse of process to invite judicial intervention» (at para 47).

As was stated by L'Heureux - Dube J. in Willick at p. 734, «the diversity of possible scenarios in family law dictates that courts maintain a flexible standard of judicial discretion which does not artificially limit the adaptability of the Divorce Act provisions».

at p. 734, «the diversity of possible scenarios in family law dictates that courts maintain a flexible standard of judicial discretion which does not artificially limit the adaptability of the

First, recent Tory amendments whittling away at judicial discretion in sentencing by increasing the number of offences subject to mandatory minimum penalties will only create new and more tragic examples of cases where a manifestly unjust sentence is required by statute.

At present, a distinction is often drawn between restrictions imposed by European legislation, for example on habitat protection, and that offered by domestic law; European requirements are often shown greater deference by decision makers, and by the courts when discretion to quash (in judicial and statutory review cases) is considered.

Rix LJ cited with approval a passage in De Smith's Judicial Review (6th edition, 2007, at paras 10 - 065ff) and headed: Policy and Bias, which noted that decision - makers are entitled «to exhibit certain kinds of bias in the exercise of their judgment or discretion on matters of public policy» and while ordinary members of legislative bodies are «entitled, and sometimes expected, to show political bias» they of course ought not to show personal bias or participate in decisions on a matter in which they have a private pecuniary or proprietary interest.

Where matters are dealt with in either the county court or the High Court, they are protected from public scrutiny yet they become open to both public and press — subject to reporting restrictions at judicial discretion — should they reach either the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.

Officers can, in other words, consider the Guidelines in the exercise of their s. 25 (1) discretion, but should turn «[their] mind [s] to the specific circumstances of the case»: Donald J. M. Brown and The Honourable John M. Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (2014), at p. 12 - 45.

(iii) Indigenous people were subject to judicial or administrative discretion as to whether they would be considered Indigenous or not, with the effect that «an artificial legal status could be imposed, withdrawn or re-imposed at the behest of one person in authority.»

The extent of the support person's involvement in the hearing will be at the discretion of the judicial officer.

At the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Board of which the award recipient, or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement, is a member, the Board may support the request for judicial enforcement in the court and, at the further discretion of the Board of Directors, reimburse the award recipient / beneficiary for costs incurred in seeking such enforcement if the courts do not award reimbursement of such costAt the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Board of which the award recipient, or the beneficiary of a settlement agreement, is a member, the Board may support the request for judicial enforcement in the court and, at the further discretion of the Board of Directors, reimburse the award recipient / beneficiary for costs incurred in seeking such enforcement if the courts do not award reimbursement of such costat the further discretion of the Board of Directors, reimburse the award recipient / beneficiary for costs incurred in seeking such enforcement if the courts do not award reimbursement of such costs.