Bakewell v The Queen

The High Court was asked to determine the validity of the Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Amendment Act 2008 and the application of the principle from Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) that State and Territory legislatures cannot confer upon a State or Territory court a function which substantially undermines the institutional integrity of the court. The case involved a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment for a single crime of murder who was challenging the validity of the 2008 amendment, which introduced a mandatory non-parole period for life sentences imposed for murder. The High Court was required to decide whether the 2008 amendment was invalid because it conferred upon the Supreme Court of Victoria a function which substantially undermined its institutional integrity and whether the 2008 amendment was inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.

The High Court held that the 2008 amendment was valid and did not substantially undermine the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court found that the 2008 amendment did not confer upon the Supreme Court a function that was inconsistent with its role as a court and that the Court could exercise its discretion in determining whether to fix a non-parole period and, if so, what that period should be. The Court also held that the 2008 amendment was not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution because it did not impose a new criminal liability or alter the punishment for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. The Court found that the 2008 amendment did not confer upon the Supreme Court a function that was inconsistent with its role as a court and that the Court could exercise its discretion in determining whether to fix a non-parole period and, if so, what that period should be. The Court found that the 2008 amendment was not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution because it did not impose a new criminal liability or alter the punishment for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth.

The High Court held that the 2008 amendment was valid and did not substantially undermine the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court found that the 2008 amendment did not confer upon the Supreme Court a function that was inconsistent with its role as a court and that the Court could exercise its discretion in determining whether to fix a non-parole period and, if so, what that period should be. The Court also held that the 2008 amendment was not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution because it did not impose a new criminal liability or alter the punishment for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. The Court found that the 2008 amendment was valid and did not substantially undermine the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court of Victoria.