1 GAGELER CJ, GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD, GLEESON, JAGOT AND BEECH-JONES JJ. By a proceeding commenced in the original jurisdiction of this Court the plaintiff challenges the constitutional validity of ss 175L and 175E of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ("the CS Act"). The plaintiff submits that each provision permits the executive branch of State government to interfere impermissibly with the exercise of judicial power by the Supreme Court of Queensland contrary to the principle established by this Court in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).[1] If s 175L were found to be invalid, the parties have agreed by special case to ask a further question, namely, whether former s 193A of the CS Act would thereby apply to the plaintiff. For the reasons which follow, the plaintiff's challenge to the validity of s 175L fails and it is otherwise unnecessary for this Court to consider the validity of s 175E or the possible application of former s 193A.
2 The plaintiff's challenge to the validity of ss 175L and 175E faces the difficult task of distinguishing the principles established by the decisions of this Court in Crump v New South Wales,[2] Knight v Victoria[3] and Minogue v Victoria.[4] In essence, those cases establish that a State may validly change the conditions for a grant of parole from time to time and that this does not constitute an impermissible interference with judicial power.
3 Chapter 5 of the CS Act sets out a series of provisions regulating the grant of parole in Queensland. Sections 175L and 175E are contained in Pt 1AB of Ch 5, which deals with two types of parole "declarations" that may be made by the parole board of Queensland or its president.
4 Division 2 of Pt 1AB addresses the making of a "no cooperation declaration". Section 175L provides that if the parole board is "not satisfied a no
