Reg v Shrestha

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Shrestha, sought to challenge a decision concerning his eligibility for parole. The respondent was represented by counsel instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a foreign national who entered Australia solely to commit serious crimes and with the intention of immediate departure should be considered an appropriate candidate for parole eligibility. The applicant's submission was that such an individual should not be eligible for parole, arguing that courts should not impose minimum terms or order parole eligibility for offenders who are unsuitable candidates.

The applicant's argument was predicated on the legislative framework in various Australian jurisdictions that grants sentencing judges a role in determining parole eligibility. Specific legislation from Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the Commonwealth, and South Australia was referenced, all of which, in substance, empower courts to fix a minimum term or declare eligibility for parole. The applicant contended that if a court declines to fix a minimum non-parole period in these jurisdictions, the offender is not eligible for parole at all, as it is a prerequisite for the parole board's jurisdiction. While Queensland's regime differs, the applicant highlighted a commonality across the other states in permitting judges to determine parole eligibility.