Alimudin v McCarthy; Nurdin v Bravos

In Alimudin v McCarthy; Nurdin v Bravos, the applicants, Haruma Alimudin and Suriyadi Nurdin, appealed against their sentences in the Northern Territory Court of Justice. Each was convicted of an offence under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) and sentenced to imprisonment. The central issue was whether their sentences could be backdated to the date of their arrest under section 63(5) of the Sentencing Act (NT). This statute allows a court to order that a sentence of imprisonment shall commence on the day of the arrest or any day between the arrest and the sentencing.

The applicants contended that their sentences should be backdated to the day they were taken into custody, which was prior to their formal sentencing. The legal issue before the court was whether the phrase "taken into custody" in section 63(5) of the Sentencing Act encompassed being detained under the Fisheries Management Act or the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court needed to determine if these provisions of the federal acts could be considered as "custody" for the purpose of backdating a sentence under the Sentencing Act (NT).

The court found that section 63(5) of the Sentencing Act (NT) did permit the backdating of a sentence to the date of arrest if the offender was taken into custody due to an arrest for conduct that may have amounted to an offence. Given that both applicants were detained under the Fisheries Management Act and subsequently convicted, their sentences could be backdated to the date of their arrest. The court concluded that the phrase "taken into custody" included detention under federal acts, and thus the sentences could be appropriately backdated. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were amended to commence on the dates of their arrest.