Burridge v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 254

Burridge v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 254

The application was refused because the Court was unable to determine that the material before the Parole Authority was false or misleading, the substance of Mr Burridge's complaints had been before the Authority, and there was nothing to suggest that the Authority failed fairly and thoroughly to consider the competing factual contentions or made any wrong factual determination warranting a direction under s 155.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Following Refusal of Parole / Final Determination in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Application Refused
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['parole' 'state Parole Authority' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'supreme Court Directions Under S 155' 'prison Performance and Rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['parole' 'state Parole Authority' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'supreme Court Directions Under S 155' 'prison Performance and Rehabilitation']

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 S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Following Refusal of Parole / Final Determination in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the NSW State Parole Authority refused parole on the basis of false or misleading information.' 'Whether the Supreme Court should determine disputed factual assertions contained in material before the Parole Authority.' 'Whether any direction should be given to the Parole Authority under s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court was unable to determine that the material before the Parole Authority was false or misleading, the substance of Mr Burridge's complaints had been before the Authority, and there was nothing to suggest that the Authority failed fairly and thoroughly to consider the competing factual contentions or made any wrong factual determination warranting a direction under s 155.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']