Evans v Job

Evans (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, concerning the calculation of remissions applicable to his sentence. The applicant had been sentenced in Victoria to a term of imprisonment, and subsequently, a further sentence was imposed in Tasmania. The dispute centred on whether the Tasmanian Corrections Regulations 2008, specifically regulation 22, applied to the applicant's Victorian sentence, thereby affecting the total period of imprisonment for remission purposes. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of regulation 22 of the Corrections Regulations 2008 (Tas). This regulation defines "total period of imprisonment" for the purposes of calculating remissions. The Court was required to determine whether this definition encompassed sentences imposed in other Australian jurisdictions, or if it was limited to sentences served within Tasmania. The applicant contended that the Tasmanian regulations should apply to his Victorian sentence, thereby entitling him to a greater remission entitlement.

The Court analysed the wording of regulation 22 and the broader legislative context of the Corrections Act 1997 (Tas). It concluded that the definition of "total period of imprisonment" in regulation 22 was intended to apply only to sentences imposed by Tasmanian courts and served within Tasmania. The Court reasoned that to apply the Tasmanian remission scheme to a sentence imposed and served in Victoria would be an impermissible extraterritorial application of Tasmanian law. Therefore, the applicant's Victorian sentence was not to be aggregated with his Tasmanian sentence for the purpose of calculating remissions under Tasmanian law.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.