Double-murderer in High Court bid to overturn ‘no body, no parole’ laws
By Cloe Read
A convicted double-murderer, who is serving a life sentence for killing his wife and teenage stepdaughter, has asked the High Court to rule that ‘no body, no parole’ laws infringe on judicial independence.
In 2002, Rodney Michael Cherry was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his wife, Annette Cherry, and his stepdaughter Kira Guise in central Queensland. The girl’s body has never been found.
At his trial, the prosecution argued Cherry procured his other stepdaughter, Deborah Guise, to kill her mother using a .45-calibre colt pistol he taught her to use.
The ‘no body, no parole’ laws were designed to help victims’ families and give prisoners an incentive to cooperate with police. Credit: AAP Image/Human Rights Watch, Daniel Soekov
Deborah Guise testified that when she turned 16, she began to have a sexual relationship with Cherry. She was later convicted of manslaughter.
In 2022, Cherry applied to the Queensland Parole Board for release, arguing the ‘no body, no parole’ laws should not apply to him in relation to Kira’s death. He claimed he was wrongly convicted and did not know where her remains were.
However, the board ruled in 2023 that Cherry failed to comply with the laws, by not cooperating with police, and was therefore not eligible to apply for parole.
Cherry has now taken his case to the High Court, where attorneys-general from NSW, Victoria, South Australia, the Northern Territory, and Western Australia last month joined Queensland in defending the ‘no body, no parole’ laws.
Cherry argues sections of the Corrective Services Act infringe upon the Kable principle, which prevents state parliaments from making laws that adversely affect the integrity and independence of state courts.
He argues that declarations, such as those used under ‘no body, no parole’ laws, have the effect of altering or setting aside orders of the Supreme Court.
“While the declarations are in force, those prisoners are deprived of the opportunity granted by the Supreme Court Order to be considered for release on parole, even after serving the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment imposed as part of their sentences,” Cherry’s court documents state.
In response, the Queensland Solicitor-General, Gim Del Villar KC, told the court “there is nothing impermissible about the exercise of judicial power by the executive government of a State, and whether or not a power is judicial or nonjudicial in character is not determinative as to whether the Kable principle has been infringed”.
The Solicitor-General of Western Australia, Craig Bydder SC, agreed.
“The Parliament of Queensland cannot be said to have altered the legal effect of [Cherry’s] sentence nor made the sentence more punitive,” Bydder told the court in WA’s submissions.
Cherry also raises the possibility a prisoner might be unable to co-operate and help locate a body because doing so could result in the prisoner being killed themselves. Queensland’s submissions noted that suggestion, but added that Cherry had not specified if that was his reason for not cooperating with police.
The case is expected to return to court later this month.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.