Page:The King v Hatahet.pdf/14

Gordon A-CJ Steward J Gleeson J

"there is but one sentence, that imposed by the trial judge, which cannot be altered by the paroling authority". Thus in Minogue v Victoria, this Court said:

""In the case of the plaintiff, at all times, there remained only one sentence − imprisonment for life. The fixing of the non-parole period of 28 years said nothing about whether the plaintiff would be released on parole at the end of that non-parole period. It left his life sentence unaffected as a judicial assessment of the gravity of the offence committed. Indeed, the plaintiff has no right to be released on parole and may be required to serve the whole of the head sentence. At best, the non-parole period provided the plaintiff with hope of an earlier conditional release but always subject to and in accordance with legislation in existence at the time governing consideration of any application for parole. Put in different terms, the fixing of a non-parole period does no more than provide a 'factum by reference to which the parole system' in existence at any one time will operate.""

21 The general principle is that the prospect of securing release on parole or of obtaining remissions is not relevant to the judicial task of sentencing. The leading decision of this Court is Hoare v The Queen. That case concerned a provision of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) which required a court when sentencing to "have regard to the fact" that a prisoner may be credited with a maximum of 15 days of remission for each month served in prison. The Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia had formed the view that the practical effect of this section justified a dramatic increase in the length of terms of imprisonment. This Court held that this view was mistaken. It decided that it was "well settled as a matter of principle" that the existence of a remission scheme, of a kind then in operation in South Australia, was not of itself "a circumstance justifying an increase in the head sentence". The reasons underlying that conclusion were said to be "clear". There were three.