Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Corrective Services v Jackson

[2009] WASCA 51

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parole
4. › Parole eligibility
5. › Calculation of parole eligibility for partly concurrent sentences
6. › Whether partial aggregation of terms approach correct
7. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 85, 88, 89, 93, 94
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Jurisdiction
3. › Court of Appeal jurisdiction
4. › Referral of question by Supreme Court judge
5. › Whether application under s 49 of Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) within civil or criminal jurisdiction
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), ss 25(6), 43, 58(1)
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 49
4. › Whether 'inadequate provision' requires gap in legislative scheme or includes ambiguous statutory language

Quick Take

The minimum period in custody for partly concurrent sentences is calculated by aggregating the 'serve alone period' on the first term with the separately calculated non-parole period for the second term, not by partially aggregating the terms and then applying the non-parole fraction to the aggregate. The partial aggregation approach from Pinkstone and Kirby (No 1) is wrong. The sentencing judge's statement of the minimum period under s 34(2) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) is a non-binding advisory opinion and does not form part of the sentence.