In a groundbreaking legal showdown, several Australian state governments are uniting to defend their “no body, no parole” laws before the nation’s highest court. The controversial statutes, which prohibit convicted murderers from being paroled if they refuse to reveal the location of their victim’s remains, now face a constitutional challenge from Queensland double killer Rodney Cherry.
Killer’s High Court Appeal Triggers State Reactions
Cherry, 62, was convicted in 2002 of murdering his wife Annette Cherry and stepdaughter Kira Guise in rural Queensland. While Annette’s body was found, 18-year-old Guise’s remains have never been located. Sentenced to life with a 20-year minimum before parole eligibility, Cherry has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
Under Queensland law, killers who fail to satisfactorily cooperate in locating a victim’s body can be denied parole – a statute colloquially known as “no body, no parole.” When the parole board rejected Cherry’s July 2023 release application citing this provision, he filed a High Court appeal asserting the law grants unconstitutional judicial powers to the government.
States Rally to Uphold Victim-Focused Legislation
Cherry’s appeal has prompted an unprecedented alliance, with the Attorneys-General of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory intervening to defend their own “no body, no parole” laws. In statements to the court, they emphasized the laws’ intent to incentivize offender cooperation and reduce families’ suffering, rather than extend punishments.
The ‘no body-no parole prisoner’ provisions were intended to reduce the suffering of victims’ families by providing an incentive for offenders to cooperate with authorities, rather than to increase the severity of the punishments imposed.
– NSW Solicitor-General Michael Sexton
Queensland Asserts No Permanent Parole Bar
Countering Cherry’s assertions, the Queensland government stressed that “no body, no parole” laws do not indefinitely prohibit release. Prisoners shed the “no body-no parole” designation if a victim’s remains are found, even without their cooperation. This, the state contends, differentiates Cherry’s case from prior unsuccessful High Court parole appeals.
Constitutional Questions and Case Implications
As the High Court prepares to assess the constitutionality of “no body, no parole” statutes, the case’s outcome could have far-reaching implications. A ruling in Cherry’s favor might see such laws struck down nationwide, eliminating a key tool for recovering victims’ remains and providing closure to grieving families.
Conversely, if the court upholds the laws, it would reinforce Australia’s commitment to prioritizing victims’ rights and the societal imperative of returning loved ones’ remains. The decision will undoubtedly shape the delicate balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and the enduring impacts of irreversible crimes.
A Nation Awaits a Landmark Ruling
As the High Court deliberates, the nation awaits a landmark ruling that will not only determine Rodney Cherry’s fate but also define the contours of how Australia’s justice system handles the most grievous crimes and the rights owed to those left behind. The outcome promises to be a defining moment in the country’s legal landscape and its ongoing pursuit of justice and solace for the victims of homicide.
