Mitchell Jacka was sentenced to three months periodic detention in February 2008 for driving while disqualified, but failed to show up after the first two weeks.

The Sentence Administration Board – which in the ACT deals with parole, release on licence, and periodic detention breaches –ordered Jacka to serve the rest of his sentence in full-time prison.

In January 2009, Jacka was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for a serious assault. The first four months were to be served as weekend detention, but Jacka again stopped attending after the first two appearances.

The board responded by again ordering him to serve the rest of the sentence in full-time custody.

Jacka served both full-time jail sentences, but later challenged the legality of the board's actions.

His lawyers, Ken Cush and Associates, said the board, a part of the executive government, had acted like a court exercising judicial power by cancelling the original sentence and effectively resentencing him.

That, they argued, was at odds with the constitution, which states only courts can exercise judicial power in such a way.

Jacka also argued that made the ACT laws that gave the board those powers unconstitutional.

The argument failed in the ACT Court of Appeal late last year, where it was found that the board had neither determined Jacka's guilt or innocence, nor decided on his punishment.

The court found the board had merely acted upon its statutory obligations to cancel a periodic detention order when a breach had occurred.

The only decision the board made, the court found, was whether Jacka had actually breached his obligations to attend periodic detention.

Jacka attempted to take his argument to the High Court on Friday, making an application for special leave to appeal.

The High Court refused special leave for Jacka to appeal.