Flynn v The King [1949] HCA 38
The Prison Regulations did not confer a legal right to early release; any purported benefit under the marks system was subject to administrative discretion and ultimately the Royal Prerogative of mercy. No accrued right arose upon repeal, and the applicant's continued custody was lawful.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Order on Application for Special Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- ['remission of Sentences' 'prison Regulations' 'interpretation of Statutory Powers']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Order on Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant acquired a legal right to release under Prison Regulations 1923' 'Whether Prison Regulations 1923 legally reduced a life sentence to twenty years for the applicant' 'Whether the repeal of Prison Regulations preserved any accrued rights to release under section 17 of the Interpretation Act 1918-1938' 'Whether the marks system under prison regulations conferred a legal entitlement to release']
Ratio Decidendi
The Prison Regulations did not confer a legal right to early release; any purported benefit under the marks system was subject to administrative discretion and ultimately the Royal Prerogative of mercy. No accrued right arose upon repeal, and the applicant's continued custody was lawful.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- ['Application for special leave to appeal refused']
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