Kramer v State Parole Authority [2023] NSWSC 564

Kramer v State Parole Authority [2023] NSWSC 564

The applicant did not discharge the onus of establishing that the information on which the State Parole Authority based its decisions was false, misleading or irrelevant. His assertions and explanations about why he had not participated in programs, why he required recorded communications with Community Corrections, and why he intended to appeal convictions did not show that the factual information supporting the Authority's reasons was false, misleading or irrelevant. The Court could not conduct a merits review of the parole refusals under s 155.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Direction Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['refusal of Parole' 'application to Supreme Court by Offender' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'scope of Review Under S 155' 'community Safety and Parole Considerations']
['administrative Law' 'parole' 'criminal Law'] ['refusal of Parole' 'application to Supreme Court by Offender' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'scope of Review Under S 155' 'community Safety and Parole Considerations']

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 for Direction Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the State Parole Authority's decisions refusing parole were made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information." 'Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence to support an application under s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the applicant established that information supporting the need for offending behaviour programs, post-release planning, and willingness to comply with parole conditions was false, misleading or irrelevant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the onus of establishing that the information on which the State Parole Authority based its decisions was false, misleading or irrelevant. His assertions and explanations about why he had not participated in programs, why he required recorded communications with Community Corrections, and why he intended to appeal convictions did not show that the factual information supporting the Authority's reasons was false, misleading or irrelevant. The Court could not conduct a merits review of the parole refusals under s 155.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application filed on 14 April 2022 for directions pursuant to s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) is dismissed.']