Two Sentence Calculations
You are preparing case notes for two inmates whose sentence calculations have been returned by the sentence management unit.
Inmate A: head sentence 4 years; non-parole period 2 years 6 months; term commenced 12 June 2023. The court order records 60 days of pre-sentence custody already included in the commencement date.
Inmate B: head sentence 3 years; non-parole period 18 months; term commenced 1 September 2024. The court order records 30 days of pre-sentence custody not included in the commencement date and to be deducted.
A colleague has drafted the case notes. For inmate A he wrote: 'NPP expires 12 December 2025; head sentence expires 12 June 2027.' For inmate B he wrote: 'NPP expires 1 March 2026; head sentence expires 1 September 2027.' You must confirm both sets of dates before the parole review list is sent to the delegate at 16:00.
1. Check inmate A's dates and show your working.
Read the worked answer
Inmate A's dates are correct.
Working:
- Head sentence: 12 June 2023 + 4 years = 12 June 2027.
- Non-parole period: 12 June 2023 + 2 years = 12 June 2025; + 6 months = 12 December 2025.
- Pre-sentence custody: the order states the 60 days is already included in the commencement date. Deducting it again would release him 60 days early and would be an error in his favour - the kind of error that is picked up at audit and has to be unwound after the inmate has been told a date.
Key reasoning: the commencement date is the anchor. Pre-sentence custody is either already absorbed into it or is expressly deducted from it. You read the order wording, not your assumption about what usually happens. When a colleague's figures come back correct, say so and move on - the review should focus on the one that is wrong.
2. Calculate inmate B's correct dates and identify the colleague's error.
Read the worked answer
Inmate B's dates are wrong - the colleague omitted the 30-day deduction on both dates.
Working:
- NPP: 1 September 2024 + 18 months = 1 March 2026. Deduct 30 days. February 2026 has 28 days, so count back across the month boundary rather than assuming 30-day months: 1 March - 28 days = 1 February; - 2 more days = 30 January 2026.
- Head sentence: 1 September 2024 + 3 years = 1 September 2027. Deduct 30 days: 1 September - 1 day = 31 August; - 29 more days = 2 August 2027.
So the correct entries are NPP 30 January 2026 and head sentence 2 August 2027. The colleague's figures are each 30 days late.
Why the error is serious in both directions: too late an NPP date can mean an inmate is held past eligibility, which is a legal exposure for the Service; too early a date puts a review before the inmate is eligible and wastes the delegate's time. It also flows into every downstream record - review listings, classification decisions, and anything told to the inmate.
3. The parole review list is due at 16:00. What do you do about the discrepancy, and why not simply fix it yourself?
Read the worked answer
Do not silently overwrite a figure produced by the sentence management unit, and do not let the list go out with a date you believe is wrong.
Steps:
- Query in writing to the sentence management unit, quoting the court order reference and showing your arithmetic: 1 September 2024 + 18 months, less 30 days = 30 January 2026, and the equivalent for the head sentence.
- Notify your supervisor early that the 16:00 list may slip, with the reason. A late list with a reason is manageable; a wrong list discovered afterwards is not.
- Record the query and the response on the file - who you asked, when, what was confirmed, and what was changed.
- Check the order wording itself. 'Not included and to be deducted' is unusual phrasing. If it is ambiguous on its face, the answer is to have it clarified through sentence administration, not to choose the interpretation that seems most likely.
- Do not overwrite the original entry. Amend on the record with the date and the reason so the correction is auditable.
The reasoning: you are a check on the system, not a second system. Your value is in catching and documenting the error; a quiet unilateral fix removes the evidence and leaves the underlying process fault in place for the next file.