R v Steen

The appellant, a 51-year-old man with a long history of criminal activity, was convicted of three burglaries and four thefts committed while on conditional liberty. He was sentenced to imprisonment terms for these offences, which were to run concurrently. The offender was released on parole after serving the non-parole period for his previous sentences but subsequently breached parole conditions. The Sentence Administration Board cancelled his parole, and the offender was returned to custody. He was later convicted of further offences, which were aggravated by a confrontation and a struggle with an elderly occupant, resulting in the latter spending two nights in hospital. The Board subsequently ordered a new non-parole period for the total term of the previous and new sentences.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Board's decision to set a new non-parole period for the offender's total term was lawful and appropriate. The offender argued that the Board had failed to properly consider the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that he had spent most of his adult life in custody and was seriously institutionalised. The Board, in turn, argued that the new non-parole period was necessary to protect the community given the offender's repeated breaches of parole conditions and the severity of the new offences.

The court found that the Board had exercised its discretion lawfully and appropriately in setting a new non-parole period. The court held that the Board had properly considered the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that he had spent most of his adult life in custody. However, the court also found that the Board had failed to adequately consider the difficulties in providing suitable post-release accommodation for the offender. Nonetheless, the court held that this error did not affect the overall lawfulness of the Board's decision. The court further held that the new non-parole period was appropriate given the severity of the offender's new offences and his repeated breaches of parole conditions.

The court confirmed the Board's decision to set a new non-parole period for the offender's total term of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 4 months. The offender was to be released on parole after serving two-thirds of the new non-parole period, subject to the usual parole conditions. The court also ordered that the offender's sentences for the previous and new offences were to run concurrently, with the offender to be credited with any time already served in custody.