Cameron v The Queen: A Consideration of Sentencing Principles Applicable to Pleas of Guilty
AbstractThis article examines the sentencing principles enunciated in Cameron v The Queen. With respect to the principles applicable to pleas of guilty, it considers: the subjective and objective rationales for mitigation of sentence; the discrimination generated by reliance on purely objective justifications for mitigation of sentence; and the proper approach to be adopted by sentencing judges in making mitigation and arriving at sentence. This article also examines the reception of Cameron to date and argues that despite their consideration by five members of the High Court, these sentencing principles may have limited application in future.
Authors who publish with this journal retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC-BY). This is to achieve more legal certainty about what readers can do with published articles, and thus a wider dissemination and archiving, which in turn makes publishing with this journal more valuable for authors.