Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Corrective Services v Jackson

The Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Corrective Services sought a declaration from the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the respondent, Jackson, would not be eligible for parole until he had served a minimum of two years in custody. This was in accordance with section 49 of the Sentencing Administration Act 2003 (WA). The applicant had previously determined that Jackson would not be eligible for parole until he had served a minimum of two years. Jackson appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, which referred the matter to the Supreme Court for a determination of its jurisdiction and the calculation of parole eligibility in relation to partly concurrent sentences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to make a declaration under section 49 of the Sentencing Administration Act 2003 (WA). Additionally, the court had to determine the correct calculation of parole eligibility in respect of partly concurrent sentences. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and the context of the matter to resolve these issues. The court found that the Court of Appeal did have the jurisdiction to make the declaration and that the calculation of parole eligibility should be based on the total time to be served for all sentences, including partly concurrent sentences.

In its decision, the court noted that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to determine the issue of parole eligibility under section 49 of the Sentencing Administration Act 2003 (WA). The court also clarified the calculation of parole eligibility in respect of partly concurrent sentences. The court held that the minimum period to be served in custody should be calculated based on the total time to be served for all sentences, including partly concurrent sentences. Consequently, the court made a declaration that Jackson would not be eligible for parole until he had served a minimum of two years in custody. This decision provided clarity on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the calculation of parole eligibility in similar cases.