AA v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2020] NSWSC 1669

AA v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2020] NSWSC 1669

The Authority took into account adverse material filed on behalf of the Commissioner, after the plaintiff had specifically sought an opportunity to consider and respond to such material, but did not give the plaintiff that opportunity before determining the parole application. The denial of natural justice was not merely theoretical because further evidence was available that could have addressed matters relevant to COVID-19 risk in correctional facilities. The decision should therefore be set aside and the application remitted for decision according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Decision Refusing Release on Parole / Ex Tempore Judgment on Consent Orders After Settlement
Outcome
The matter settled; the Court made consent orders setting aside the State Parole Authority's decision and remitting the plaintiff's parole application for decision according to law, with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['parole' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'covid 19 in Correctional Facilities' 'judicial Review']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['parole' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'covid 19 in Correctional Facilities' 'judicial Review']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Decision Refusing Release on Parole / Ex Tempore Judgment on Consent Orders After Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the State Parole Authority denied the plaintiff procedural fairness by considering adverse material from the Commissioner without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond.' "Whether the decision refusing release on parole should be set aside and the plaintiff's application remitted to the State Parole Authority for decision according to law."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority took into account adverse material filed on behalf of the Commissioner, after the plaintiff had specifically sought an opportunity to consider and respond to such material, but did not give the plaintiff that opportunity before determining the parole application. The denial of natural justice was not merely theoretical because further evidence was available that could have addressed matters relevant to COVID-19 risk in correctional facilities. The decision should therefore be set aside and the application remitted for decision according to law.

Court Disposition

The matter settled; the Court made consent orders setting aside the State Parole Authority's decision and remitting the plaintiff's parole application for decision according to law, with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["That the second defendant's decision, made 25 June 2020, be set aside." "That the plaintiff's application for release on parole under s 160 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 be remitted to the State Parole Authority for decision according to law." 'That the plaintiff discontinues the remainder...