› Variation and cancellation of community correction orders
Administrative law
› Judicial review
› Jurisdictional error — want of jurisdiction
Statutory interpretation
› Meaning of 'application'
› Written application versus oral hearing
Quick Take
1An 'application' for the purposes of s 48N(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 is the written application form filed with the court while the CCO is in force, not the oral submissions made at the hearing — supported by the distinction drawn in s 48N(3) between 'the application' and 'the hearing of the application', and by reg 19 of the Sentencing Regulations 2021.
2A court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to vary or cancel a CCO under s 48M of the Sentencing Act 1991 after the CCO has ceased to be in force, even where the written application was filed while the CCO was still in force; the filing of the application does not extend or preserve the CCO beyond its expiry date.
3The variation/cancellation regime in Division 5 of Part 3A and the contravention regime in Part 3C of the Sentencing Act 1991 are separate and distinct processes with different purposes, standards of proof, and temporal limits, and should not be conflated — Part 3C (with its own time limits) is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with non-compliance after a CCO has expired.
