Knight v Victoria

The plaintiff, Mr Knight, challenged the constitutional validity of section 74AA of the *Corrections Act 1986* (Vic) before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Section 74AA, which applied only to Mr Knight by name, stipulated that he could not be granted a parole order unless the Adult Parole Board was satisfied he was in imminent danger of dying or seriously incapacitated, and lacked the physical capacity to harm any person. Mr Knight contended that this provision impermissibly interfered with sentences imposed by the Supreme Court, thereby undermining its institutional integrity contrary to Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether section 74AA of the *Corrections Act 1986* (Vic) was invalid on the ground that it contravened Chapter III of the Constitution. This required the Court to consider the principle established in *Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)*, which concerns the limits on state legislative power to interfere with the sentencing and punishment functions of State Supreme Courts. The Court also had to determine if *Crump v New South Wales* was distinguishable and whether it was necessary to consider the validity of the function conferred by section 74AA being exercised by a division of the Adult Parole Board that included a judicial officer.

The Full Court reasoned that section 74AA did not, in substance, alter or interfere with the sentences previously imposed by the Supreme Court. Instead, it imposed a condition on the exercise of the Adult Parole Board's power to grant parole, a power distinct from the sentencing function of the Court. The Court distinguished the provision from those considered in *Kable* and *Crump*, finding that it did not involve the "enlistment of judicial officers" in a manner that impaired the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the legislation did not substantially impair the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, and therefore did not contravene Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Full Court answered the questions stated in the special case. It held that section 74AA of the *Corrections Act 1986* (Vic) was not invalid on the ground that it was contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution. The Court ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceeding.