Hubbard v Fisher

[2001] WASCA 182

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parole eligibility
4. › Exercise of discretion
5. › Whether irrelevant consideration taken into account
6. › Whether concurrent/cumulative sentencing decisions relevant to parole eligibility discretion
7. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 89
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parole eligibility
4. › Relationship between sentencing discretion and parole eligibility discretion
5. › Whether length of sentence or cumulation/concurrence decisions may influence parole eligibility
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 89
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence appeal
4. › Re-exercise of discretion by appellate court
5. › Whether appellate court should re-exercise parole eligibility discretion where error found

Quick Take

A sentencing court exercising the discretion under s 89 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) to order parole eligibility must not take into account whether terms of imprisonment have been made concurrent or cumulative. The considerations relevant to cumulation/concurrence are distinct from and irrelevant to the parole eligibility discretion.

Case Details

Citation[2001] WASCA 182

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.

4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by7

2013KWLD v The State of Western Australia [No 4]WASCA 185
2008Parker v The State of Western AustraliaWASCA 46
2006Penny v The State of Western AustraliaWASCA 173
2006Cockie v The State of Western AustraliaWASCA 66
and 3 more after sign-in

Relies on5

2000Garlett v The QueenWASCA 72
1999Cardillo v TaylorWASCA 166
1988Veen v R (No 2)HCA 14
1936House v RHCA 40
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in