Sentences with phrase «on judicial discretion»

That requires severe controls on judicial discretion.

In my view, when administrative decision - makers come into contact with the ordinary courts, reference to legislative intent may provide a more promising analytical framework than reliance on judicial discretion.

87 % of Americans and 83 % of Republicans believe that mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders should be replaced by a system focused on judicial discretion.

(1) if mandatory minimums are an unjustifiable fetter on judicial discretion, then why would caps on sentences be justified?

Both Trudeau and Wilson - Raybould identified the use of mandatory minimum sentences and constraints on judicial discretion as priority areas for reform.

After misleading the Commons himself on judicial discretion in these cases, he introduced an amendment on the so - called «highly likely» test (explained in detail here).

Both Trudeau and Wilson - Raybould identified the use of mandatory minimum sentences and constraints on judicial discretion as priority areas for reform.

Not exact matches

Are there clear, cut and dry rules on when a president can take executive action, or is it all up to the judicial branch's arbitrary discretion?

Sen. Pat Gallivan on Monday questioned whether the state Legislature even needs to act on bail, given judicial discretion.

The white paper also draws (selectively) on earlier judicial statements to argue that in matters of foreign policy and national security, a certain level of discretion is to be given to the executive.

This broad discretion rests largely on the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill - suited to judicial review.

CLEVELAND — The centuries - old process of releasing defendants on bail, long the province of judicial discretion, is getting a major assist — courtesy of artificial intelligence.

However, it does add an interesting twist to the ongoing debate around judicial discretion in violent crime sentencing, given the federal government's tough - on - crime agenda.

Based upon complaints filed by, among others, Washington DC based Judicial Watch, the Commission had sought to remove Judge Kendall from the bench on the basis of criticisms of his bail and sentencing decisions in specific cases, none of which had ever been appealed and each of which was soundly within his legal discretion.

On the other hand, judicial discretion aside, thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court, there is no strict cap to medical malpractice damages.

Effectively, applicants are thus not entitled to rely on the provision directly, but to judicial review which verifies whether this discretion has been used within the limits the Directive prescribes (para 25).

Bob: I think you raise an interesting point regarding «maximum sentences» as an equally dangerous fetter on the freedom of judicial discretion and yet I can't honestly think of a single example of a case in which a crown has said «I wish the maximum sentence was higher so I can seek out a «fair» sentence.»

It is even more tragic that offenders in this circuit will have to rely on prosecutorial discretion, not judicial discretion, in order to receive a just and fair sentence in these cases.

The Court of Appeal held — on a more or less technical judicial review basis — that the decision not to call J was within the local authority's discretion and could not be set aside by judicial review.

In reaching the conclusion that Frontline was bound to pay a penalty, the Court dismissed Frontline's invitation to modify the language of Article 18 and to imply a judicial discretion as to whether a penalty should be ordered on the facts of each particular case and / or the amount of any such penalty.

The Model Penal Code: Sentencing project provides guidance on some of the most important issues that courts, corrections systems, and policymakers are facing today, including the general purposes of the sentencing system; rules governing sentence severity — including sentences of incarceration, community supervision, and economic penalties; the elimination of mandatory minimum penalties; mechanisms for combating racial and ethnic disparities in punishment; instruments of prison population control; victims» rights in the sentencing process; the sentencing of juvenile offenders in adult courts; the creation of judicial powers to review many collateral consequences of conviction; and many issues having to do with judicial sentencing discretion, sentencing commissions, sentencing guidelines, and appellate sentence review.

On judicial review, courts are reluctant to second guess the decision not to grant an adjournment, as the discretion to permit or deny an adjournment «falls squarely within the discretion» of the adjudicator: Senjule v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 ONSC 2817.

This would be an untenable ground on which to exercise judicial discretion under the Dagenais / Mentuck test.

When making a judicial determination on the allocation of litigation costs, two decisions fall to the deciding judge under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 44.2: establishing which of the litigating parties is the «winner», and applying judicial discretion to determine any discounts or changes to awarded costs necessary to reflect elements of the case.

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.

But overall, the costs, increased incarceration while crime levels are decreasing, and doing away with judicial discretion on sentencing seem to be the main sticking points.

On the other hand, the Court found that if the Parliament finds the petition admissible, further actions taken are not amenable to judicial review, because the Parliament has a broad discretion of political nature as to how the petition is further dealt with, «regardless» of whether the Parliament deals with the petition directly or further refers it to other competent authorities.

However, one may question whether the EFTA Court is not going very far here in reviewing the appropriateness of domestic judicial decisions in a field where EEA law expressly gives discretion to EEA EFTA States — in deliberate contrast to the constraints imposed on EU Member States under the preliminary reference procedure.

Work v Gray provides little further guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when considering the issue of special contribution, beyond the principles which have already been set out in previous cases.

matter of principle based on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to judicial review»... (cites omitted)

Judicial non-interference with prosecutorial discretion has been referred to as a «matter of principle based on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to judicial review»... (cites Judicial non-interference with prosecutorial discretion has been referred to as a «matter of principle based on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as a matter of policy founded on the efficiency of the system of criminal justice» which also recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is «especially ill - suited to judicial review»... (cites judicial review»... (cites omitted)

In Reasons issued on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice LeBel reiterated that jurisdiction must be based upon a «real and substantial connection» between a particular forum and the subject matter of the litigation and that the determination of whether there is such a connection must not be a matter of pure judicial discretion but, rather, be based upon a clear set of presumptive factors that will be applied to whether the courts of a particular province can take jurisdiction.

The Minister described s. 87 as a «big step forward» because the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128 [FRA] did not provide any guidance on setting a valuation date and there had been considerable criticism of the broad judicial discretion to determine the date: BC, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 39th Parl., 4th Sess., Vol.

This approach was, however, criticised by the minority on the basis that it was too vague and too wide, converting a legal principle into the exercise of judicial discretion.

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»).

The decision was subject to considerable commentary due to the fact that this was the first reported occasion that the judicial discretion on administration applications had been exercised in this manner.

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.

Wow, that couldn't possibly be judicial discretion — clearly, a century of case law has been turned on its head!!

Such a government can pass legislation providing for greater guidance on cost regimes in the public interest, thereby providing basis for judicial any discretion in this area.

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.

Following the introductory section to the U.S. Code's chapter on judicial review of administrative agency decisions (5 U.S.C. Section 701), the amici state that judicial review ought to be presumptively available absent (1) a statute precluding judicial review, or (2) the FDIC's action being committed to its discretion by law.

They could be (a) attacks on specific institutions (e.g., judicial independence from the police discretion, free press, etc), or they could be (b) attacks on a vague idea like Patrick Deneen's «individualist anthropology»).

As Ormrod LJ predicted, judicial discretion under MCA 1973 has moved on since Martin and important guidelines have developed, but the exercise remains discretionary.

This has manifested itself not only with a raft of prescriptive criminal legislation on practice and procedure but also successive home secretaries» efforts to curtail and straitjacket judicial discretion in sentencing.

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.

I have to disagree that it is not an answer to rely on Crown discretion to correct these problems when we are limiting judicial discretion.

On the one hand, the decision reflects a desire to put more discretion in the hands of trial judges and to expand the boundaries of judicial decision - making.

But when the court did just that on Oct. 14, it drew wide criticism for missing an opportunity to resolve a long - running dispute over judicial discretion in sentencing.

In the Native Title Report 2007, I expressed a number of concerns about the changes including the amount of ministerial discretion in recognising these bodies, the additional administrative burdens placed on them, the uncertain position that bodies with short recognition periods are put in, and the preclusion of judicial review for the decision.