Psaila v Dept of Corrective Services
Case
•
[2005] QCA 16
•11 February 2005
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Psaila v Dept of Corrective Services [2005] QCA 16
[2005] QCA 16
11 February 2005
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Psaila and the Department of Corrective Services of Queensland were involved in a dispute regarding the interpretation of parole laws. The respondent's parole was cancelled under section 185 of the Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld). The key legal question was whether the cancellation of parole constituted a transaction past and closed, and whether, by virtue of section 268 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), section 152 of that Act applied, meaning the time between the respondent's release on parole and his breach of parole condition would count as time served.
The court had to determine if the cancellation of parole constituted a transaction past and closed, and if so, whether section 152 of the 2000 Act applied. The court considered the interaction between sections 185, 190(1), 268, and 152 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld). The respondent argued that the cancellation of parole should not be regarded as a transaction past and closed, and that the time spent on parole should count as time served. The Department of Corrective Services contended that the cancellation of parole constituted a transaction past and closed, and that the time spent on parole should not count as time served.
The court held that the cancellation of parole did constitute a transaction past and closed, but that section 152 of the 2000 Act did not apply. Therefore, the time between the respondent's release on parole and his breach of parole condition did not count as time served. The court set aside the previous declaration and order for costs, and issued a declaration that none of the period between the respondent's release on parole and his recommencing to serve the unexpired portion of his term of imprisonment counted as time served. A warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days prior to any execution of the warrant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the hearing below and of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
The court had to determine if the cancellation of parole constituted a transaction past and closed, and if so, whether section 152 of the 2000 Act applied. The court considered the interaction between sections 185, 190(1), 268, and 152 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld). The respondent argued that the cancellation of parole should not be regarded as a transaction past and closed, and that the time spent on parole should count as time served. The Department of Corrective Services contended that the cancellation of parole constituted a transaction past and closed, and that the time spent on parole should not count as time served.
The court held that the cancellation of parole did constitute a transaction past and closed, but that section 152 of the 2000 Act did not apply. Therefore, the time between the respondent's release on parole and his breach of parole condition did not count as time served. The court set aside the previous declaration and order for costs, and issued a declaration that none of the period between the respondent's release on parole and his recommencing to serve the unexpired portion of his term of imprisonment counted as time served. A warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days prior to any execution of the warrant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the hearing below and of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Declaration
-
Contempt of Court
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
R v Bartorillo [2006] QCA 283
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Laman v Department of Corrective Services
[2005] QSC 209
Zwarts v Tucker
[2005] QDC 77
R v Bartorillo
[2006] QCA 283
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
4
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May
[1977] HCA 17
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May
[1977] HCA 17
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May
[1977] HCA 17