Horwitz v Connor

This case involved an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Louis Horwitz, was a prisoner serving sentences in Geelong gaol. He had obtained a writ of habeas corpus against Edward Charles Connor, the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments of Victoria, alleging his entitlement to release under regulations made pursuant to section 540 of the *Crimes Act 1890* (Vict.). These regulations provided for the remission of sentences based on good conduct. The Full Court of the Supreme Court had discharged the writ, finding that Horwitz was not entitled to release under the proper interpretation of the regulations.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether it had jurisdiction to order a prisoner under sentence of a State Court to be brought before it to personally apply for leave to appeal, and whether special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court's discharge of the habeas corpus writ should be granted. Relatedly, the Court considered whether a writ of mandamus could lie against the Governor in Council of a State regarding the remission of sentences.

The High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal. The Chief Justice, Griffith CJ, explained that the power granted to the Governor in Council under section 540 of the *Crimes Act 1890* to make regulations and to mitigate or remit sentences was discretionary. He stated that a mandamus would not lie to the Governor in Council, and no court had jurisdiction to review the discretion of the Governor in Council in exercising the prerogative of mercy. The Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to order a prisoner under sentence of a State Court to be brought before it for the purpose of applying for leave to appeal.