White v SPA of NSW & Anor [2007] NSWSC 299
Section 128 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 permits the Parole Authority to impose additional parole conditions, such as Condition 12, which are not limited by s 128A. The language and legislative intent indicate that Parliament did not intend to restrict such powers. The procedural fairness complaint lacks utility, as the Authority has since offered the claimant an adequate opportunity to be heard. Thus, no relief is warranted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 April 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Summons
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['judicial Review' 'parole Conditions' 'procedural Fairness' 'statutory Interpretation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a condition of parole (Condition 12) was invalid under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999' 'Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness at the parole hearing on 13 May 2005']
Ratio Decidendi
Section 128 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 permits the Parole Authority to impose additional parole conditions, such as Condition 12, which are not limited by s 128A. The language and legislative intent indicate that Parliament did not intend to restrict such powers. The procedural fairness complaint lacks utility, as the Authority has since offered the claimant an adequate opportunity to be heard. Thus, no relief is warranted.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The Summons filed 10 August 2006 is dismissed.' 'Each party pay his/its own costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment