skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 51308 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: RULE OF LAW AND THE CANADIAN PENITENTIARY SYSTEM
Author(s): I HANSEN
Corporate Author: John Howard Soc of Ontario
Canada
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 4
Sponsoring Agency: John Howard Soc of Ontario
Ottawa,Ontario K1Y 135, Canada
National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: IT IS ARGUED THAT CANADIAN PENITENTIARY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM WHICH COMBINES AN OMBUDSMAN WITH VISITING MAGISTRATES IS HELD UP AS A POSSIBLE MODEL.
Abstract: THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS A 5-4 DECISION HANDED DOWN BY THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ON MARCH 8, 1977, WHICH DENIED THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF AN INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN A CANADIAN PENITENTIARY. IT IS ARGUED THAT WHENEVER A PRISON ADMINISTRATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACT WITHOUT PUBLIC SCRUTINY, THE POSSIBILITY OF TYRANNY EXISTS. A COURT DECISION IN AUSTRALIA IS REVIEWED WHICH HELD THAT WHEN GOVERNORS OF PRISONS EXERCISE DISCIPLINARY POWERS, THEY ARE ACTING ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT WHEN THEY CALL IN A VISITING TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL ACTS JUDICIALLY AND CAN BE REVIEWED. CANADIAN COURT DECISIONS DEALING WITH VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS JUDICIAL ASPECTS OF PRISON DISCIPLINE ARE REVIEWED. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF JUSTICE AND POWER OF REVIEW ARE DISCUSSED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT PRISON ADMINISTRATORS NEED EXECUTIVE POWER TO DEAL WITH EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. HOWEVER, MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROLS ARE NEEDED TO HANDLE THE ROUTINE SITUATIONS THAT RESULT IN QUESTIONABLE JUSTICE DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT RULES OF EVIDENCE, LACK OF PROPER REPRESENTATION FOR THE PRISONER, OR LACK OF RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS. LEGAL PRECEDENT AND A CHANGE IN LAW MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THIS TO TAKE PLACE. THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM, WHICH USES AN OMBUDSMAN TO SCREEN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND MAKES CASES SERIOUS ENOUGH FOR 'VISITING MAGISTRATES' AUTOMATICALLY REVIEWABLE, IS DESCRIBED. SOME SUCH REFORM IS URGED FOR CANADA. FOOTNOTES CONTAIN REFERENCES. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Australia; Canada; Correctional institutions (adult); Inmate discipline; Judicial decisions; Judicial review; Ombudsmen; Reform
Note: COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERIES 1, N 8 ADDRESS AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF ONTARIO, OCTOBER 1977
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=51308

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.