Pickrell v Tasmania

In *Pickrell v Tasmania*, the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania considered an appeal against sentence. The appellant, who had been convicted of dishonesty offences as an employee, received a sentence of four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The central issue on appeal was whether the imposition of a parole eligibility period of two years and six months, which was greater than half of the head sentence, was manifestly excessive.

The Court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the non-parole period at two years and six months, thereby making the appellant ineligible for parole until she had served more than half of her four-year sentence. This involved an assessment of whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the relevant sentencing principles and whether the resulting non-parole period was demonstrably too severe in the circumstances of the offending.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the non-parole period of two years and six months was indeed manifestly excessive. The Court reasoned that, as a general principle, a non-parole period should not exceed half of the head sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying such an approach. In this instance, the Court determined that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately justify the imposition of a non-parole period exceeding half the head sentence. Consequently, the Court quashed the original order regarding parole eligibility and substituted it with an order that the appellant would not be eligible for parole until she had served half of the four-year sentence, meaning two years.