Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26

Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26

The Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971 A.C.T. required the sentencing judge to specify the minimum period of imprisonment during which the offender was not eligible for parole, determined judicially by reference to accepted sentencing principles and all the circumstances of the offence. It did not confine the judge...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Applications for Special Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / High Court Special Leave and Appeal Against Non Parole Periods
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['non Parole Period' 'judicial Discretion in Sentencing' 'parole of Prisoners' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'common Assault']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'parole'] ['non Parole Period' 'judicial Discretion in Sentencing' 'parole of Prisoners' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'common Assault']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Applications for Special Leave to Appeal Against Sentences / High Court Special Leave and Appeal Against Non Parole Periods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Blackburn J. erred in declining to follow Reg. v. Portolesi and Reg. v. Sloane when fixing non-parole periods under the Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971 A.C.T.' 'Whether non-parole periods should be fixed by reference to the minimum period of confinement justice requires or by reference to the time needed for a paroling authority to assess prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether the sentences or non-parole periods involved an error of principle warranting appellate interference.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole of Prisoners Ordinance 1971 A.C.T. required the sentencing judge to specify the minimum period of imprisonment during which the offender was not eligible for parole, determined judicially by reference to accepted sentencing principles and all the circumstances of the offence. It did not confine the judge to estimating the time needed by a paroling authority to assess rehabilitation. Blackburn J. therefore made no error in declining to apply Reg. v. Portolesi and Reg. v. Sloane, and no other error of principle was shown.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Power v. The Queen: Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.' 'Selenski v. The Queen: Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.' 'Lyons v. The Queen: Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.']