English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This 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.

Cameron v The Queen: A Consideration of Sentencing Principles Applicable to Pleas of Guilty