R v Roberts

The appeal concerned Jake Roberts, the appellant, who sought to have a new non-parole period fixed after his parole was cancelled due to a breach of its conditions. The original sentence was imposed by the District Court for aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery, with a non-parole period of two years. Following his release on parole, Roberts provided a urine sample that tested positive for methylamphetamine, leading to the cancellation of his parole and his return to custody.

The central legal issue before the court was the principles applicable to fixing a new non-parole period for a prisoner whose parole has been revoked due to a breach of a condition. Specifically, the court had to determine how the seriousness of the breach, the offender's prospects of rehabilitation, and the need for deterrence should be weighed in this determination. The court also considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in fixing the new non-parole period at 16 months.

The court reasoned that while a breach of parole typically warrants closer attention to the seriousness of the breach and may adversely affect prospects of rehabilitation, these are factors to be weighed in the sentencing discretion. The court noted that the appellant's breach, a relapse into drug use, was a foreseeable setback given his history of drug addiction. Crucially, the breach did not involve further criminal conduct, and the appellant was actively seeking treatment for his addiction. The court found that the 16-month non-parole period was excessive and did not adequately reflect these mitigating circumstances.

Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the 16-month non-parole period. A new non-parole period of 13 months and 15 days was fixed, commencing from the date of the parole cancellation.