St Alder v State Parole Authority and Anor [2007] NSWSC 345

St Alder v State Parole Authority and Anor [2007] NSWSC 345

The Authority's decision whether to rescind the revocation order was discretionary and was open on the material. It was entitled to find that the plaintiff was dishonest or disingenuous about his understanding of condition 14 and his contact with his children, and to conclude that his attitude gave no confidence that he would comply with conditions controlling contact with the children or Ms Wilson. The reference to 'anyone else' was either a reference to other members of Ms Wilson's family or a slip, not a material misunderstanding. No false, misleading or irrelevant material was shown. Accordingly no error of law or statutory basis for relief was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief; Alternative Application Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 / Supreme Court Determination of Summons Challenging the State Parole Authority's Confirmation of Revocation of Parole
Outcome
The summons is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['revocation of Parole' 'review by State Parole Authority' 'error of Law' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Material' 'parole Conditions']
['administrative Law' 'prisons and Parole'] ['revocation of Parole' 'review by State Parole Authority' 'error of Law' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Material' 'parole Conditions']

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

Proceedings for Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief; Alternative Application Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 / Supreme Court Determination of Summons Challenging the State Parole Authority's Confirmation of Revocation of Parole

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the State Parole Authority erred in law by failing to consider alternatives to full revocation of the plaintiff's parole." 'Whether the Authority took into account an irrelevant consideration or misunderstood condition 14 of the parole order.' "Whether the Authority's finding that the parole regime could not safely operate without different cooperation from the plaintiff was unsupported by the evidence." 'Whether the Authority relied on material that was false, misleading or irrelevant for the purposes of the alternative application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority's decision whether to rescind the revocation order was discretionary and was open on the material. It was entitled to find that the plaintiff was dishonest or disingenuous about his understanding of condition 14 and his contact with his children, and to conclude that his attitude gave no confidence that he would comply with conditions controlling contact with the children or Ms Wilson. The reference to 'anyone else' was either a reference to other members of Ms Wilson's family or a slip, not a material misunderstanding. No false, misleading or irrelevant material was shown. Accordingly no error of law or statutory basis for relief was established.

Court Disposition

The summons is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Summons is dismissed.']