Pollitt v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Pollitt, sought to challenge a decision concerning the calculation of a non-parole period. The respondent was the Crown.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a sentencing judge, when accumulating a head sentence, could increase the minimum term (non-parole period) by a greater amount than the increase in the head sentence itself. The applicant argued that the specification of a minimum term is an inherent part of sentencing, and that this minimum term must necessarily be a lesser period than the full head sentence.

The applicant relied on established principles from High Court decisions in *Power's case* and *Hoare's case*. These cases affirmed that a non-parole period represents a minimum period of imprisonment to be served, and that its length is confined within the period of the head sentence. The applicant contended that these principles apply irrespective of whether the offence is committed while already imprisoned. The applicant also referred to the *Probation and Parole Act* of New South Wales, arguing that its provisions are predicated on these general sentencing principles and do not expressly permit the problematic approach adopted by the sentencing judge. The applicant highlighted the sentencing judge's approach, which resulted in an aggregate head sentence of four years, and the subsequent fixation of a non-parole period in respect of multiple sentences.