Crimes (Sentence Administration) Regulation 2006

The regulation introduces and relies on several concepts derived from the principal Act and from other ACT legislation. The central concept is the core condition under section 4. These conditions are ‘core’ because the Act makes them non-negotiable: the Parole Board must include them in every parole order, and the director-general cannot waive them. The term director-general is defined by the Legislation Act 2001, section 163 to mean the administrative head of the relevant government directorate (now the Justice and Community Safety Directorate). The board means the Sentence Administration Board established under the principal Act, which has the power to grant, vary, cancel and revoke parole. The chief executive is a separate role; the regulation requires the offender to authorise disclosure to the chief executive, not the director-general, which creates a potential split in information flow.

The prohibition on using a prohibited substance draws its definition from the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008, section 13, which in turn refers to substances declared to be prohibited under that Act. The condition also bans abuse of a medicine lawfully obtained, where ‘medicine’ has the meaning given by section 11 of the same Act. This covers not only prescription drugs but also over-the-counter preparations that meet the definition. The combination of these two definitions means that a parolee could violate the condition by using a substance that is lawful for the general public but is classified as prohibited for the purpose of parole supervision, or by using a lawful medicine in a manner that constitutes abuse (for example, exceeding the recommended dose or using it for non-therapeutic purposes).

The weapons prohibition covers four categories. A firearm is defined by the Firearms Act 1996, section 6, which includes any device that can discharge a projectile by explosive force, and includes parts and accessories. A prohibited weapon and prohibited article are defined by the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996, sections 4A and 4B respectively: prohibited weapons include things like daggers, flick knives, knuckle dusters, and certain martial arts weapons; prohibited articles include items like handcuffs and body armour that are restricted for public possession. An offensive weapon is defined by the Crimes Act 1900 dictionary to mean any article made or adapted for causing injury, or intended by the person possessing it for such use. This is a broader, intent-based category that could capture everyday items such as a screwdriver or baseball bat if the parolee intends to use it as a weapon. The condition bans both possession and control, so constructive possession (e.g., a weapon stored in a shared vehicle) may also breach it.

The concept of community-based sentence transfer under section 5 involves the ACT recognising and taking over supervision of orders made in other States, and vice versa. This requires administrative agreements and operational procedures that are not detailed in the regulation itself; the regulation merely establishes the jurisdictional gateway. A participating jurisdiction is each State, with the note clarifying that ‘State’ includes the Northern Territory. The dictionary also provides signpost definitions linking to other Acts for terms like ‘test sample’, ‘offender’ and ‘board’, ensuring consistency with the principal Act.

The regulation directly affects four groups. First, offenders serving parole in the ACT are the primary subjects of section 4. Every parolee is required to comply with the nine prescribed conditions from the moment the order is made until parole ends (including any period of suspension or variation). This includes both offenders released from custody within the ACT and those whose parole is transferred from another jurisdiction under interstate arrangements. The conditions apply regardless of the parolee’s offence type, sentence length, or individual risk assessment; they are standardised and non-negotiable. Parolees who wish to live in a particular residence must obtain pre-approval, must report as directed, must not use a range of substances, must sign authorisation forms for their health practitioners, must not travel outside the ACT overnight without permission, and must not leave Australia without board approval. The broad direction-giving power in section 4(i) means the director-general can impose additional ad hoc requirements at any time, covering association, movement, employment and participation in programs. This creates significant ongoing compliance obligations for the parolee.

Second, the director-general and the Sentence Administration Board bear administrative responsibilities. The director-general must approve premises, nominate reporting times and places, give or withhold permissions to leave the ACT, and issue directions. The board must grant or refuse permission to leave Australia. The regulation vests substantial discretion in these decision-makers, but also imposes on them a duty to act reasonably and consistently. The volume of applications for travel, change of address and reporting variations could be considerable, and the cost of processing them falls on the public purse.

Third, health practitioners (doctors, therapists and counsellors) are affected by the mandatory authorisation condition. Section 4(d) requires the parolee to authorise each such practitioner to give information about the parolee to the chief executive. This overrides the usual duty of confidentiality to the extent of the authorisation, although the parolee cannot be compelled to see a particular practitioner. Practitioners may receive requests from the chief executive for clinical information, and must decide how to respond within the terms of the parolee’s written authorisation. The condition does not specify the frequency or scope of disclosure, leaving room for disputes about what constitutes relevant information.

Fourth, State corrections agencies are indirectly affected through section 5. By declaring each State a participating jurisdiction, the regulation triggers the interstate transfer machinery in the principal Act. State agencies may receive supervision requests from the ACT and must accommodate ACT offenders under their own supervision systems. Conversely, ACT authorities may need to supervise offenders transferred from other States. The 2023 amendment removing the sunset provision gives this arrangement permanent effect, reducing administrative uncertainty but also locking in reciprocal obligations without periodic review.

The regulation imposes duties primarily on the parolee and vests rights primarily in the director-general and the board. The parolee’s duties are straightforward: comply with the nine conditions. The most open-ended duty is to comply with any direction given by the director-general. The regulation’s examples give some content: directions may relate to associating with particular people, visiting particular places (including a named suburb), obtaining or keeping employment, or attending an approved activity or program. The director-general could also give directions on any other matter not listed, so long as it falls within the scope of the regulation. The duty to comply is strict; there is no requirement that the direction be reasonable or proportionate, although the principal Act may imply such limitations. The duty to live only at approved premises means the parolee cannot change address without prior approval, even temporarily (for example, staying with a friend for a night). The duty to report includes reporting to a person at a time and place nominated by the director-general; the example mentions reporting to a corrections officer at a correctional centre or at the offender’s workplace, but the director-general could nominate other locations.

The duty not to use a prohibited substance includes passive ingestion; a parolee who consumes food or drink containing a prohibited substance without knowledge may still be in breach, because the condition is strictly one of use, not intention. The duty to authorise disclosure applies to each doctor, therapist or counsellor of the parolee. This is a continuing duty: if the parolee starts seeing a new therapist after parole begins, they must obtain that therapist’s agreement to provide information to the chief executive and sign the necessary authorisation. Failure to do so would breach the condition.

The parolee does have some rights. The right to seek permission to leave the ACT for longer than one day is explicit, but the director-general may refuse or impose conditions. The right to seek permission to leave Australia is also present, with the board as decision-maker. The right to have premises approved is implicit; the director-general cannot refuse arbitrarily, though the regulation does not set criteria for approval or refusal. The parolee also has the right to be made aware of conditions: the parole order must set them out, and the regulation ensures they are standardised. However, the regulation does not give the parolee a right to challenge directions or conditions before they take effect; any challenge would have to be by way of judicial review or internal complaint processes not specified in this regulation.

The director-general’s duties are largely procedural: give approvals, nominate reporting arrangements, issue permissions, and give directions. The director-general also has a duty to inform the parolee of any direction. The board’s duty is limited to considering applications to leave Australia. The director-general may also delegate these functions under the principal Act.

The regulation itself creates no penalty provisions. A note at the beginning of the republication states that at the republication date the value of a penalty unit for an offence against this law is $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation. That note is a generic statement required by the Legislation Act 2001; it does not mean that any offence exists in this regulation. The regulation does not create any offences of strict liability, nor does it set penalties for breach of its conditions. Enforcement is entirely through the principal Act. Breach of a core condition can lead to the Sentence Administration Board cancelling or revoking parole under the Act, which may result in the parolee being returned to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence. The Act also provides for the issue of arrest warrants and the imposition of sanctions short of revocation, such as variation of conditions or suspension of parole.

The practical consequence for a parolee who uses a prohibited substance, fails to attend a reporting meeting, or leaves the ACT overnight without permission is not a fine or separate conviction under the regulation; it is a potential loss of liberty. The threshold for revocation is not specified in the regulation; the board has discretion, but persistent or serious breaches are likely to lead to return to custody. The absence of intermediate penalties in the regulation means that relatively minor non-compliance (such as missing one reporting appointment) could theoretically lead to the most severe sanction, although in practice the board is likely to exercise proportionality.

For the director-general or board officials, there are no personal penalties for failing to carry out their functions under the regulation, other than general administrative law duties and potential civil liability for negligent decision-making. The regulation does not create an offence of hindering or obstructing the director-general; such an offence would be in the principal Act if it exists. Nor does it impose vicarious liability on employers or third parties.

The enforcement burden falls on ACT Corrective Services, who must monitor compliance. This includes conducting drug testing (authorised under the principal Act), checking addresses, verifying that reporting occurs, and liaising with health practitioners. The cost of that monitoring is borne by the public; the regulation does not require the parolee to contribute financially. For community-based sentence transfers under section 5, enforcement becomes a matter of inter-state cooperation: if an ACT offender transferred to another State breaches conditions, the other State notifies the ACT, and the ACT board determines the response.

The regulation is made under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 and is subordinate to it. If any provision of the regulation were inconsistent with the Act, the Act would prevail. The regulation fills gaps left by the Act: section 137(1)(f) of the Act says the parole order must include any other conditions prescribed by regulation, and section 265(3) says participating jurisdictions are those prescribed by regulation. The regulation therefore operates as a delegated extension of the Act.

The regulation interacts extensively with other ACT statutes through its dictionary definitions. The term firearm is defined by reference to the Firearms Act 1996, section 6, which itself is likely to be amended over time. A change in that Act’s definition would automatically change the meaning in the regulation without amending the regulation. Similarly, prohibited weapon and prohibited article derive from the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996, offensive weapon from the Crimes Act 1900, and prohibited substance and medicine from the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008. The regulation thus incorporates by reference a web of criminal and regulatory statutes, meaning a parolee must have working knowledge of multiple Acts to avoid inadvertent breach. For example, a substance that is not a prohibited drug under the Drugs of Dependence Act might still be a prohibited substance under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act. The regulation also defines director-general through the Legislation Act 2001, section 163.

The regulation also interacts with the Legislation Act 2001 in several ways: notes are declared to be explanatory and not part of the regulation; the dictionary is part of the regulation; and the standard penalty unit values apply to any future offence provision that might be inserted. The expiries and amendments recorded in the endnotes show how the regulation has been shaped by the Firearms Amendment Act 2008, the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008, the Administrative (One ACT Public Service Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2011, and the Corrections and Sentencing Legislation Amendment Act 2023. Each of those Acts amended the dictionary or substantive provisions of the regulation.

The community-based sentence transfer provision in section 5 interacts with interstate laws. Each State has its own counterpart legislation for recognising interstate community-based orders. The regulation does not create a treaty or bilateral agreement; it simply declares that the Act’s transfer provisions apply to every State. The actual operation depends on the other State’s willingness to accept transfers, which is governed by its own laws. The regulation cannot compel a State to participate; it only makes the ACT’s side of the arrangement available.

The regulation was originally made as part of the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (A2006-23) and took effect on 2 June 2006. It has been amended eight times. The first amendment was the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Amendment Regulation 2006 (No 1) (SL2006-26), which inserted the original section 5 (declaring each State a participating jurisdiction) and a transitional schedule. That provision had a sunset clause and expired on 1 August 2007. The second amendment in 2007 (SL2007-13) attempted to continue the arrangement but it also expired on 1 August 2007. A third amendment in 2007 (SL2007-34) inserted a new section 6 and schedule 2 dealing with transitional interim custody arrangements, but those expired on 18 December 2007. The fourth amendment in 2008 (SL2008-1) reinserted section 5 without a sunset, and that version remained for many years.

Major substantive amendments came through Acts of the Legislative Assembly rather than subordinate instruments. The Firearms Amendment Act 2008 (A2008-25) amended the dictionary definitions of ‘firearm’, ‘prohibited article’ and ‘prohibited weapon’ to align with changes in the Firearms Act and Prohibited Weapons Act. The Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (A2008-26) removed the then-existing definitions of ‘drug of dependence’, ‘drugs and poisons standard’ and ‘prescribed substance’, and inserted new definitions of ‘medicine’ and ‘prohibited substance’ with signpost references to that Act. These changes reflected the replacement of the Drugs of Dependence Act reference with the new regulatory framework.

The Administrative (One ACT Public Service Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2011 (A2011-22) replaced references to ‘chief executive’ with ‘director-general’ in section 4 and updated the dictionary. This was part of a government-wide reorganisation of executive terminology. The most recent amendment was by the Corrections and Sentencing Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (A2023-21), which substituted section 5 in its entirety. The previous version had declared each State a participating jurisdiction but may have had a sunset or been contingent on certain conditions; the 2023 amendment made the provision unconditional and permanent. The amendment history also shows that the regulation has been through eleven republications, reflecting numerous editorial changes and the accumulation of amendments. The transitional provisions from 2006 and 2007 have all been allowed to expire, and no new transitional provisions have been inserted since.

The source text contains no reference to any litigation. No cases are mentioned in the regulation itself, its endnotes, or the publisher’s notes. As a subordinate instrument with only two operative provisions, the regulation is unlikely to be the subject of direct litigation; challenges to parole conditions are more likely to be brought under the principal Act or on administrative law grounds such as procedural fairness or unreasonableness. However, the conditions prescribed in section 4 have almost certainly been contested in the context of parole revocation hearings or judicial review. For example, a parolee might argue that a direction given by the director-general is ultra vires the regulation, or that the definition of ‘prohibited substance’ is uncertain. The broad discretion given to the director-general under section 4(i) could be challenged as an impermissible delegation of legislative power, though such an argument would face the hurdle that the regulation itself provides the power. Similarly, the condition requiring authorisation of health practitioners could give rise to privacy or privilege claims, but those would be litigated under the principal Act, health records legislation, or the common law, not under this regulation alone.

Given that the regulation has been in force since 2006 with multiple amendments, it is likely that its provisions have been interpreted in tribunal or court decisions, but the regulation does not cite them. A practitioner would need to search the ACT Supreme Court and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal databases for decisions involving the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 and then examine whether the regulation’s core conditions were at issue. The brevity of the regulation suggests that most interpretive disputes concern the principal Act rather than this instrument.

Several aspects of the regulation may trap unwary parolees or their advisers. First, the power of the director-general to give directions under section 4(i) is extremely broad. The examples in the regulation are non-exhaustive: directions about associating with particular people, visiting places, employment, and attending programs. The director-general could, for instance, direct a parolee not to enter an entire suburb, not to contact a family member, or to attend a specific course. There is no requirement that the direction be related to the parolee’s offending or risk; the only limit is that the direction must be within the general scope of parole supervision. A parolee who receives an unreasonable direction must still comply while challenging it, because non-compliance is itself a breach of a core condition. Second, the residence condition (section 4(a)) requires that the parolee live only at premises approved by the director-general. This means that any overnight stay anywhere else, even with a relative or at a hospital, must be pre-approved. An emergency hospitalisation could put the parolee in breach unless the director-general retroactively approves. There is no exception for medical emergencies.

Third, the travel restrictions are more onerous than may appear. Leaving the ACT for longer than one day requires prior written permission from the director-general. Note that ‘longer than 1 day’ means any period exceeding 24 hours; a two-day trip to visit a sick parent would require permission. Even a same-day return trip could require permission if it involves an overnight stay (e.g., leaving at 10pm and returning next morning). Leaving Australia requires the board’s prior written permission; there is no de minimis exception. Fourth, the prohibition on using a prohibited substance includes any substance declared prohibited under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act. That Act may classify substances that are otherwise legal, such as certain herbal remedies or supplements, as prohibited for this purpose. The parolee must check the current list, which can change without notice.

Fifth, the authorisation condition (section 4(d)) requires the parolee to authorise each doctor, therapist or counsellor to give information to the chief executive. This is a blanket authorisation; it does not limit the type of information or the frequency. A parolee who refuses to authorise a particular therapist is in breach, even if the therapist objects to sharing confidential information. Sixth, the weapons prohibition includes ‘control’ of a firearm or weapon. A parolee who lives in a house where another resident owns a licensed hunting rifle could be found to have control over it if they have access to it, even if they never touch it. Seventh, the condition to comply with all conditions to which a permission to leave the ACT is subject (section 4(f)) means that if the director-grant general grants permission on condition that the parolee report daily while away, failure to do so is a breach of a core condition.

Eighth, the regulation does not require the director-general to give reasons for refusing permission or for giving a direction, which limits the parolee’s ability to challenge the decision. Ninth, the interaction with interstate transfer under section 5 means that an ACT parolee transferred to another State is subject to both the ACT core conditions and whatever additional conditions the receiving State imposes under its own law, creating potential conflicts. Tenth, the dictionary definitions are cross-referenced; if a reference Act is amended, the regulation’s meaning changes automatically. A parolee who was compliant yesterday may become non-compliant today if a new substance is added to the prohibited list under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act.

Compliance begins with understanding the nine core conditions and the definitions they incorporate. A parolee should obtain a written copy of the parole order and ensure it includes the prescribed conditions. The most practical step is to engage with the director-general’s office immediately upon release. The parolee must identify an approved place of residence before, or as soon as practicable after, release. That residence must meet any criteria set by the director-general (not specified in the regulation), and the parolee cannot change address without fresh approval. A written application for approval of each new address should be made in advance.

Reporting obligations require the parolee to attend at the time and place nominated. The parolee should keep a record of all reporting dates and times, and seek confirmation in writing. If the parolee is unable to attend (e.g., due to illness or work), they should contact the director-general’s office before the scheduled time to seek a variation; non-attendance without advance notice is a breach. For substance use, the parolee should avoid all prohibited substances entirely. This includes checking the current list of prohibited substances under the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, which the director-general should be able to provide. Any lawfully obtained medicine should be used only in accordance with the prescription or label; exceeding the recommended dose or using it for non-medical purposes would constitute abuse.

The authorisation condition requires the parolee to sign a written authorisation for each current and future health practitioner. The parolee should provide the authorised form to each practitioner and confirm that the practitioner is willing to comply. If a practitioner refuses to provide information, the parolee may need to find another practitioner or face a potential breach. For travel, the parolee must seek prior written permission before any absence from the ACT that exceeds one day, and before any international travel. Applications should be made well in advance, stating the purpose, destination, duration and any relevant circumstances. The director-general may impose conditions, such as reporting while away, which must be followed.

Weapons: the parolee must not possess or control any firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited article or offensive weapon. This may require the parolee to dispose of any such items before release, and to avoid living in a property where such items are kept. If the parolee’s residence contains a weapon owned by another occupant, the parolee should seek advice from the director-general about whether this constitutes control.

Directions under section 4(i) must be complied with. The parolee should request any direction in writing and keep a copy. If a direction is unclear or appears unreasonable, the parolee should still comply while seeking legal advice or making representations to the director-general for variation. Non-compliance while challenging the direction is risky.

For community-based sentence transfers under section 5, the parolee must comply with both the ACT conditions and any conditions imposed by the receiving State. Legal advice should be sought before the transfer to understand the receiving State’s laws.

A parolee should maintain a compliance diary documenting all approvals, directions, reporting attendances, and any communications with the director-general. Legal practitioners advising parolees should check the current version of the regulation and any amendments to the referenced Acts. They should also monitor the director-general’s policies on directions and approvals, which are not in the regulation but may be published as administrative guidelines. The regulation itself is brief; the compliance burden is high because the consequences of breach are severe.