This paper provides an overview of an emerging jurisprudence on terrorism sentencing under post-9/11 law in Canada, the UK, and Australia. It seeks to advance three objectives. One is to highlight similarities and differences in approach among these jurisdictions. Another is to lend context to a set of Ontario Court of Appeal decisions calling for stiffer sentences, and to show why future sentences may often be longer as a result — but not always. Finally, the paper seeks to demonstrate how prosecutorial discretion on sentence limits can result in widely divergent outcomes at both the high and low end of the spectrum of culpability.
