Alexander v Parole Authority of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 800

Alexander v Parole Authority of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 800

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of producing evidence that any information before the State Parole Authority was false, misleading, irrelevant, inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete, or that any such information impacted the Authority's refusal of parole or review decision. The matters raised did not attract s 155(1)(b), and the Supreme Court could not review the merits of the parole decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 155(1)(b) Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a Direction to the Parole Authority / Supreme Court Hearing After Refusal of Parole and Refusal of Review by the State Parole Authority
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parole' 'state Parole Authority' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'judicial Review Limits Under S 155']
['criminal Law' 'administration of Sentences'] ['parole' 'state Parole Authority' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'judicial Review Limits Under S 155']

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 S 155(1)(b) Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a Direction to the Parole Authority / Supreme Court Hearing After Refusal of Parole and Refusal of Review by the State Parole Authority

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Parole Authority's decision refusing parole was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information within s 155(1)(b)." 'Whether the applicant produced sufficient evidence that information before the Parole Authority was inaccurate, erroneous, incomplete, misleading or irrelevant and impacted the decision.' "Whether issues raised about alcohol use, program participation, psychiatric assessment, immigration consequences and the applicant's mother's health supported a direction under s 155(1)(b)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of producing evidence that any information before the State Parole Authority was false, misleading, irrelevant, inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete, or that any such information impacted the Authority's refusal of parole or review decision. The matters raised did not attract s 155(1)(b), and the Supreme Court could not review the merits of the parole decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application under s 155(1)(b) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 dismissed.']