Prisoner X received a 5 year sentence to be suspended after 2 years in custody in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, a sentencing judge can impose conditions on a suspended sentence compared to Queensland where a suspended sentence only contains one condition, not to commit an offence. Prisoner X received a set of 8 conditions on his suspended sentence as ordered by the sentencing judge. Prisoner X then transferred to Queensland under the prisoner interstate transfer legislation. He was subsequently advised by correctional staff that he needed to apply for parole because his suspended sentence has been translated into a parole eligibility date. His sentence was translated in this way to ensure that he would be subject to supervision in the community, as ordered by the sentencing judge.
The imposition of a parole eligibility date instead of a suspended sentence resulted in Prisoner X being subject to more a severe sentence than what was intended by the sentencing judge. Further, it would have resulted in him being subject to provisions within the Corrective Services Act 2006 that empower probation and parole officers and the parole boards, to return him to custody in circumstances where he is considered to pose a risk of harm or committing an offence, even where he had not breached a condition of his parole. This regulatory regime differs markedly from the supervision he would be subject to under a suspended sentence in the Northern Territory or in Queensland. PLS made submissions to Queensland Corrective Services that they were not empowered to translate Prisoner X’s sentence in these terms and that he was entitled to a suspended sentence. Queensland Corrective Services reconsidered their translation of this sentence and Prisoner X was released on a suspended sentence instead of a parole order.
