Daniel Trevor Davis v New South Wales State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 1231

Daniel Trevor Davis v New South Wales State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 1231

The plaintiff did not show that the material before the Parole Authority was false, misleading or irrelevant, or that the Parole Authority acted on such material. The Authority was entitled to consider his failure or inability to undertake sexual offender and alcohol and other drug programs as relevant to the assessment of his risk of re-offending and ability to adapt to lawful community life. The evidence supported the Authority's conclusions, cl 219A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 was not relevant to the plaintiff's application, and the procedure before the Authority involved notice, representation, evidence, cross-examination and submissions, so there was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S155 Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and Claim for Prerogative Relief Concerning Refusal of Parole / Supreme Court Hearing of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['parole Refusal' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'natural Justice' 'prerogative Relief' 'judicial Review' 'risk of Re Offending']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law' 'corrections and Parole'] ['parole Refusal' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'natural Justice' 'prerogative Relief' 'judicial Review' 'risk of Re Offending']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S155 Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and Claim for Prerogative Relief Concerning Refusal of Parole / Supreme Court Hearing of Application

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 s155 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999." 'Whether the plaintiff established grounds for prerogative relief, including denial of natural justice, failure to take into account relevant considerations, unreasonable abuse of power, or error of law due to insufficient evidence.' "Whether the Parole Authority could take into account the plaintiff's failure or ineligibility to undertake sexual offender and alcohol and other drug programs when assessing risk of re-offending and suitability for parole."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not show that the material before the Parole Authority was false, misleading or irrelevant, or that the Parole Authority acted on such material. The Authority was entitled to consider his failure or inability to undertake sexual offender and alcohol and other drug programs as relevant to the assessment of his risk of re-offending and ability to adapt to lawful community life. The evidence supported the Authority's conclusions, cl 219A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 was not relevant to the plaintiff's application, and the procedure before the Authority involved notice, representation, evidence, cross-examination and submissions, so there was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']