Test case for lockup times
Confusion over convicted ice trafficker’s sentence
A TEST case has been brought before a panel of Tasmania’s top judges that could impact how long prisoners spend in jail.
Prison boss Kristy Lee Bourne has asked the Full Court of the Supreme Court to make a declaration on how to calculate the length of time an in mate must spend behind bars when they are subject to more than onen on-parole period.
“It looks to beast hough the legislation is a mess,” Chief Justice Alan Blow said.
The test case has arisen following the re-incarceration of Sandy Bay restaurateur and ice trafficker Duc Van Nguyen.
A decision in Nguyen’s case will also have an impact on future cases. Nguyen was the chef and owner of Duc’s Asian Cuisine, a business that collapsed in 2017 while he was in prison for selling more than $200,000 of meth.
He spent more than two years in jail before he was released on parole in January 2019. But Nguyen resumed his drug delivery business, was caught driving with ice in his system in April and was sent back to jail for a week, but subsequently re-released.
Nguyen was busted dealing again in July and sent back to jail. In May this year, he was imprisoned for three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
Ms Bourne, the Director of Corrective Services, has sought clarification on when Nguyen’ s new non-parole period will begin. Lawyer Jenny Rudolf said confusion had arisen as to whether the time a prisoner had previously been on parole would count towards the time served on a new non-parole period.
She said working out if an inmate had served a suitable time in jail shouldn’t be “left on the shoulders” of the Parole Board of Tasmania.
Fabiano Cangelosi, counsel for Nguyen, said it had been the intention of parliament that a non-parole period in a new sentence should start at the expiration of the earlier head sentence. Chief Justice Blow and Justices Stephen Estcourt and Robert Pearce reserved their decision, to be delivered at a future date.