Bakewell v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Bakewell against the Queen concerning the application of Northern Territory legislation to a prisoner transferred to South Australia. Bakewell had been sentenced in 1989 to mandatory life imprisonment for murder, with a 20-year non-parole period deemed under the Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act 2003 (NT). The Act allowed the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to revoke this deemed non-parole period and fix a longer one, or no period at all, upon application by the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, Bakewell was transferred to South Australia before such an application was made, and under the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act, his Northern Territory sentence was deemed to have been imposed by a South Australian court.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory retained jurisdiction to determine an application made under section 19 of the Northern Territory Act after the prisoner's transfer to South Australia, and whether Bakewell was still considered a "prisoner" within the meaning of that Act for the purposes of such an application. The Court also considered whether the application constituted a contempt of court or an abuse of process, and whether the Act itself was invalid in its application to Bakewell.

The High Court reasoned that the term "prisoner" in Division 1 of Part 5 of the Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act 2003 (NT) should be interpreted according to its natural meaning. The Court found that upon Bakewell's transfer to South Australia, he ceased to be a prisoner serving a sentence under Northern Territory law, and therefore the Director's application under section 19 did not relate to a "prisoner" as defined by the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory could not apply section 19 to Bakewell.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory were set aside. The High Court ordered that Question 4, "Does s 19 of the Act (as amended) apply to Bakewell?", be answered "No". The other questions referred to the Full Court were deemed unnecessary to answer.