Attorney-General of NSW v George [2020] NSWSC 1621

Attorney-General of NSW v George [2020] NSWSC 1621

The Authority was entitled to reconsider parole because a circumstance of manifest injustice was established under cl 223(1)(b): participation in the External Leave Program was relevant to the March 2020 refusal but, because of the COVID-19 suspension, was no longer available as a relevant matter. The Commissioner knew of and had an opportunity to address that basis. Reading the Authority's reasons as a whole and without fine scrutiny, the Authority considered the risks to community safety, the effect of parole supervision, the absence of further custodial pathways, mental health treatment, accommodation, electronic monitoring and the Commissioner's submissions, and thereby complied with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a State Parole Authority Decision to Grant Parole / Further Amended Summons Dated 9 November 2020
Outcome
Further Amended Summons dismissed; stay discharged; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'parole' 'manifest Injustice' 'procedural Fairness' 'mandatory Considerations' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'parole' 'manifest Injustice' 'procedural Fairness' 'mandatory Considerations' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 a State Parole Authority Decision to Grant Parole / Further Amended Summons Dated 9 November 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the State Parole Authority had power under s 137B of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to reconsider parole on the basis of manifest injustice under cl 223 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014.' 'Whether the Authority denied the Commissioner procedural fairness by proceeding on a basis not put to the Commissioner.' 'Whether the Authority failed to consider mandatory matters under s 135(2)(a) and s 135(2)(c) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.' "Whether the Authority's reasons were inadequate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority was entitled to reconsider parole because a circumstance of manifest injustice was established under cl 223(1)(b): participation in the External Leave Program was relevant to the March 2020 refusal but, because of the COVID-19 suspension, was no longer available as a relevant matter. The Commissioner knew of and had an opportunity to address that basis. Reading the Authority's reasons as a whole and without fine scrutiny, the Authority considered the risks to community safety, the effect of parole supervision, the absence of further custodial pathways, mental health treatment, accommodation, electronic monitoring and the Commissioner's submissions, and thereby complied with...

Court Disposition

Further Amended Summons dismissed; stay discharged; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Further Amended Summons dated 9 November 2020 is dismissed.' 'The order of the Court of 28 October 2020 staying the effect of the decision of the State Parole Authority dated 1 October 2020 to grant the First Defendant parole is discharged.' 'Plaintiff to pay the costs of the First Defendant.']