Cherry v QueenslandCitation:[2025] HCA 14Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:09 Apr 2025Case Number:B11/2024Read more

Cherry v QueenslandCitation:[2025] HCA 14Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:09 Apr 2025Case Number:B11/2024Read more

The High Court held that ss 175L and 175E of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) do not impermissibly interfere with the exercise of judicial power by State courts. The making of 'no cooperation' and 'restricted prisoner' declarations by the parole board is an executive function regulating parole eligibility and does not alter the sentence imposed by the court. Accordingly, the provisions are not invalid under the Kable principle.

Parties
Plaintiff: Cherry; Defendant: Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Judicial Power, Parole Eligibility, Executive Interference, Kable Principle
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Separation of Powers Judicial Power Parole Eligibility Executive Interference Kable Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cherry

Plaintiff

Queensland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss 175L and 175E of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) are invalid for enabling the executive to impermissibly interfere with the exercise of judicial power by State courts contrary to the Kable principle

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that ss 175L and 175E of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) do not impermissibly interfere with the exercise of judicial power by State courts. The making of 'no cooperation' and 'restricted prisoner' declarations by the parole board is an executive function regulating parole eligibility and does not alter the sentence imposed by the court. Accordingly, the provisions are not invalid under the Kable principle.

Court Disposition

plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The impugned provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) are valid.