DPP v Bakewell

In the case of DPP v Bakewell, the applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought to increase the non-parole period for the defendant, Mr Bakewell, who was serving a life sentence for murder. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which has the authority to alter non-parole periods under the Parole Reform Act 2003 (NT). The central issue before the court was whether the original non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate, considering the nature of the crime and Mr Bakewell's conduct during his imprisonment.

The court had to determine whether the original non-parole period was sufficient given the severity of Mr Bakewell’s crime and his subsequent behaviour in prison. Mr Bakewell had committed a brutal and premeditated murder, breaking into the victim's home with the intent to have non-consensual sexual intercourse. Despite his violent actions, the court noted that Mr Bakewell did not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. His remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation, including participation in a sexual behaviour clinic, were also considered. The court found that while the crime was heinous, Mr Bakewell’s efforts at rehabilitation and his lack of intent to kill warranted a reassessment of the non-parole period.

The court concluded that the original 20-year non-parole period was inadequate in light of the crime’s severity and Mr Bakewell's partial reformation. The court revoked the existing non-parole period and set a new non-parole period of 25 years, backdated to the date of the offence. This decision reflects a balance between the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

Mr Bakewell's non-parole period of 20 years was revoked and replaced with a new non-parole period of 25 years, backdated to 27 February 1988.