Double Punishment? Preventative Detention Schemes under Australian Legislation and their Consistency with International Law: The Fardon Communication

Keyzer, P; Blay, S

Double Punishment? Preventative Detention Schemes under Australian Legislation and their Consistency with International Law: The Fardon Communication

Keyzer, P Blay, S

Permalink

Publisher:: The University of Melbourne
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2006, 7 (2), pp. 407 - 424
Issue Date:: 2006-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (184.41 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Keyzer, P	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Blay, S	en_US
dc.date.issued	2006-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2006, 7 (2), pp. 407 - 424	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1444-8602	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6555
dc.description.abstract	This commentary critically analyses legislation enacted by the Queensland Parliament that reincarcerates sex offenders who have already completed their terms of imprisonment. Despite the fact that the constitutional validity of this new style of preventive detention was upheld by the High Court of Australia, important questions remain regarding the international legal validity of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). In particular, a recently commenced UN Communication by prisoner Robert Fardon argues that the Queensland Act inflicts double punishment contrary to art 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This commentary considers the issues raised by this communication.]	en_US
dc.publisher	The University of Melbourne	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Melbourne Journal of International Law	en_US
dc.title	Double Punishment? Preventative Detention Schemes under Australian Legislation and their Consistency with International Law: The Fardon Communication	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	7	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	180116 International Law (excl. International Trade Law)	en_US
utslib.for	180120 Legal Institutions (incl. Courts and Justice Systems)	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.volume	7	en_US

Abstract:

This commentary critically analyses legislation enacted by the Queensland Parliament that reincarcerates sex offenders who have already completed their terms of imprisonment. Despite the fact that the constitutional validity of this new style of preventive detention was upheld by the High Court of Australia, important questions remain regarding the international legal validity of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). In particular, a recently commenced UN Communication by prisoner Robert Fardon argues that the Queensland Act inflicts double punishment contrary to art 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This commentary considers the issues raised by this communication.]

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/6555