Reg v Watt

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal by the Crown against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the sentencing of the respondent, who had been sentenced in the Supreme Court to 19 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years, with an order refusing remissions off the non-parole period. Following an escape, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court for that offence. The District Court judge imposed a cumulative sentence and fixed a fresh aggregate non-parole period, which had the effect of shortening the respondent's overall period of incarceration. Crucially, the District Court judge did not make an order refusing remissions off this new non-parole period.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the District Court judge had the power to make an order for a non-parole period that effectively substituted a pre-existing non-parole period, thereby potentially shortening the total time the prisoner would serve. Specifically, the court considered the interaction between the sentencing for a new offence (escape) and the existing sentence, and how the imposition of a cumulative sentence and a new non-parole period affected the original sentencing orders, particularly regarding remissions.

The Crown argued that the District Court judge's order, by fixing a new non-parole period without an order refusing remissions, effectively varied the Supreme Court judge's order. The District Court judge's power to do so was based on s 20 and s 24(2) of the *Probation and Parole Act* (NSW). Section 20 permits a judge to fix a non-parole period when sentencing a prisoner already serving a sentence, and s 24(2) provides that where a judge fixes a non-parole period under s 20 in a cumulative sentencing situation, that period may be ordered to be in substitution for any pre-existing non-parole period. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed the Crown's appeal, implying it found the District Court judge's actions to be within his statutory authority.