A Canberra court has upheld the Sentence Administration Board's power to send an offender to jail.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But Mitchell Jacka could now take his constitutional challenge to the board's authority to the High Court.
In 2008, Jacka was convicted of driving while disqualified and sentenced to three months weekend detention.
He showed up for the first two weeks but failed to attend again.
The board issued a warrant for his arrest and ordered him to serve the outstanding two months and one week in full-time custody.
Jacka was, soon after, sentenced to 10 months jail, to be served as four months weekend detention, on a serious assault charge.
He again attended twice and then failed to show up.
The board again ordered his arrest and sentenced him to serve the balance of three-and-a-half months in jail full-time.
He served both sentences.
Jacka's lawyers, Ken Cush and Associates, challenged his detention, arguing the board had exercised judicial power in cancelling the original sentence and had effectively resentenced him.
He argued that, under the Constitution, only the courts had the authority to exercise that power.
Jacka's lawyers argued, therefore, that sections of the Sentence Administration Act were unconstitutional because they invested the board with judicial power.
But Justice Richard Refshauge found the board had the jurisdiction to cancel an offender's periodic detention and did not impair the institutional integrity of the ACT courts.
Jacka appealed to the ACT Court of Appeal, seeking the have sections of the Sentence Administration Act declared invalid and the board's order deemed unlawful.
The court heard argument and reserved its decision in late October.
The case was dismissed and a judgment published on Wednesday.
Justice John Gilmour said the board had inquired into whether Jacka had breached his obligations, and had not judged his guilt or innocence, nor determined his punishment.
Justice Gilmour said Jacka's rights and responsibilities had been framed by the sentencing judge.
"Once the sentence has been imposed, the exercise of judicial power is spent and the responsibility for the future of the offender passes to the executive branch of the government," Justice Gilmour wrote.
Justice Gilmour said that the decision by the board that the appellant had breached his obligations by failing to perform two periods of detention triggered the mandatory cancellation of his periodic detention by the board.
"The manner in which he served the sentence of imprisonment already ordered was dependent upon his compliance with the statutory obligations.
"The only decision made by the board is one of fact as to whether there has been a breach involving failure to perform two or more detention periods. Once that breach is established the statutory obligation to cancel ensues."
Jacka's lawyer, Sam Tierney, said his client would review the decision before deciding whether to take the fight to the High Court.
"Our client will review the well-reasoned Court of Appeal decision," Mr Tierney said.
"Whether a board of public servants can cancel a court order and send a person to jail without the court or the public's knowledge remains an important question for the ACT community."
