RE COCK; EX PARTE DIANO [2014] WASC 63
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 63 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2901/2013 | 25 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 5/03/14 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DINO JOSEPH DIANO
Plaintiff
Catchwords:
Statutes - Statutory interpretation - Prisoner sentenced in Queensland to term of 7 years expiring 12 May 2017 with minimum term expiring 12 May 2013 - Prisoner transferred to Western Australia - Whether Prisoners Review Board had power to make a parole order in May 2013, or whether parole orders could not be made before 12 May 2015
Legislation:
Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983 (WA), s 25, s 26
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 20
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 93
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Ms K J Farley SC
Amicus Curiae : Mr R M Mitchell SC
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Abigail Rogers Barristers & Solicitors
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Judge Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 15 NSWLR 292
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Curtin University of Technology v Woods Bagot Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 449
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10
Newcastle City Council v…
Continue reading Re Cock; Ex parte Diano
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Cock; Ex parte Diano [2014] WASC 63
- Case
- [2014] WASC 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Cock; Ex parte Diano involved a prisoner, Cock, who was sentenced in Queensland to a term of 7 years, expiring on 12 May 2017, with a minimum term expiring on 12 May 2013. Cock was transferred to Western Australia, where the dispute arose regarding whether the Prisoners Review Board had the power to make a parole order for Cock in May 2013, or whether such orders could not be made before 12 May 2015. Diano, as the applicant, sought judicial review of the Board's decision to refuse parole. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The central legal issue was whether the Prisoners Review Board had the authority to make a parole order for Cock in May 2013, prior to the expiry of the minimum term. The court had to interpret relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections of the Sentencing Act 1992 (WA) and the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 1987 (WA), to determine the Board's powers in this context. The applicant argued that the Board had the power to make parole orders at any time, while the respondent contended that such orders could only be made after the minimum term had expired.
The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent to conclude that the Board's power to make parole orders was indeed constrained by the minimum term of Cock's sentence. The court found that until the minimum term expired on 12 May 2015, the Board could not make a parole order for Cock. The court's interpretation was based on a literal and contextual reading of the statutes, which did not permit parole orders before the minimum term had expired. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were straightforward: the application was dismissed, and Cock remained subject to the conditions of his sentence until the minimum term expired on 12 May 2015. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions governing parole eligibility and the limitations imposed by minimum terms in the sentencing and parole process.
The central legal issue was whether the Prisoners Review Board had the authority to make a parole order for Cock in May 2013, prior to the expiry of the minimum term. The court had to interpret relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections of the Sentencing Act 1992 (WA) and the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 1987 (WA), to determine the Board's powers in this context. The applicant argued that the Board had the power to make parole orders at any time, while the respondent contended that such orders could only be made after the minimum term had expired.
The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent to conclude that the Board's power to make parole orders was indeed constrained by the minimum term of Cock's sentence. The court found that until the minimum term expired on 12 May 2015, the Board could not make a parole order for Cock. The court's interpretation was based on a literal and contextual reading of the statutes, which did not permit parole orders before the minimum term had expired. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.
The final orders of the court were straightforward: the application was dismissed, and Cock remained subject to the conditions of his sentence until the minimum term expired on 12 May 2015. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions governing parole eligibility and the limitations imposed by minimum terms in the sentencing and parole process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.