CHANNELL v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 124

CHANNELL v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 124

The application failed because, although the tattoo information was wrong, it was inconceivable that it affected the Parole Authority's deliberations given the other information before it. As to treatment services in Dubbo, the substance of the information before the Authority was that the relevant Probation and Parole officers did not know whether suitable services were available, and there was no evidence before the Court that this information was false, misleading or irrelevant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Concerning a Parole Refusal Decision / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['parole' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 S 155' 'sex Offender Treatment Availability']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['parole' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 S 155' 'sex Offender Treatment Availability']

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

Application Under Section 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Concerning a Parole Refusal Decision / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Parole Authority's decision not to release the Plaintiff on parole was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information within Section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999." 'Whether incorrect information that the Plaintiff had an "AC/DC" tattoo affected the Parole Authority\'s decision.' 'Whether information before the Parole Authority about the availability of suitable psychological or therapeutic services in the Dubbo area was false, misleading or irrelevant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because, although the tattoo information was wrong, it was inconceivable that it affected the Parole Authority's deliberations given the other information before it. As to treatment services in Dubbo, the substance of the information before the Authority was that the relevant Probation and Parole officers did not know whether suitable services were available, and there was no evidence before the Court that this information was false, misleading or irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']