13.
35 In Knight, the plaintiff had been convicted of seven counts of murder and 46 counts of attempted murder and had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed at 27 years. Shortly before he became eligible for parole, the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) was amended to insert s 74AA. This greatly limited the availability of parole for the plaintiff on an ad hominem basis.
36 The plaintiff contended that s 74AA interfered with the sentence imposed upon him; a party-specific judicial judgment about his eligibility for parole, it was said, had been replaced with a "party-specific legislative judgment about the same matter".[1] Crump was said to be distinguishable because s 74AA targeted the plaintiff and no one else. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought to reopen Crump.
37 The plaintiff's submissions were rejected by the entire Court. The application to reopen Crump was rejected[2] and the attempt to distinguish Crump was held to rely upon "a distinction without a difference".[3] Whether the plaintiff would or would not be able to secure release on parole:[4]
"was simply outside the scope of the exercise of judicial power constituted by imposition of the sentences. The sentences imposed by [the sentencing judge] could not, and did not, speak to that question."
38 Making a grant of parole more difficult thus did not contradict the non-parole period that had been fixed. Moreover, s 74AA did not replace a judicial judgment with a legislative judgment. As such s 74AA did not "intersect at all with
- ↑ (2017) 261 CLR 306 at 322 [23] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.
- ↑ (2017) 261 CLR 306 at 323 [25] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.
- ↑ (2017) 261 CLR 306 at 323 [25] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.
- ↑ (2017) 261 CLR 306 at 323 [28] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.
