Robert Clive Watts v The Queen [1985] FCA 302
A sentencing Judge in the ACT is not permitted to adjust upwards the non-parole period by reason of the remissions regime that may apply under the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (NSW); such upward adjustment constitutes error, and the appropriate non-parole period must be fixed as if the remissions regime did not exist.
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Clive Watts; Respondent: The Queen
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Supreme Court of the ACT
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Non Parole Period, Remissions, Application of Probation and Parole Act 1983 (nsw) to ACT Prisoners
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Clive Watts
Appellant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Supreme Court of the ACT
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing Judge erred in having regard to remissions of the non-parole period under the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (NSW) and its regulations when sentencing a person convicted in the ACT and to serve sentence in NSW.
Ratio Decidendi
A sentencing Judge in the ACT is not permitted to adjust upwards the non-parole period by reason of the remissions regime that may apply under the Probation and Parole Act 1983 (NSW); such upward adjustment constitutes error, and the appropriate non-parole period must be fixed as if the remissions regime did not exist.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The sentence of three years' imprisonment with hard labour is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment