Non-compliance with community-based supervision orders (as distinct from parole or conditional release orders) does not satisfy the criterion in s 89(4)(c) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) relating to failure to comply with a 'release order'. Where a sentencing judge proceeds on an incorrect premise regarding s 89(4)(c), the appellate court may revisit the parole eligibility decision even though the discretion to refuse parole was otherwise triggered. The rehabilitative purpose of parole, including its role as an incentive for offenders to undertake treatment programmes, remains a significant consideration in the exercise of the discretion. The question whether s 89(4) creates a bias towards parole eligibility or confers a discretion at large remains unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.