LMS v Parole Board [1999] NSWCCA 371

LMS v Parole Board [1999] NSWCCA 371

The evidence satisfied the Court that the Applicant had made serious efforts to obtain individual counselling. Although Dr Blake's report was not false, the omission of those efforts made the report misleading because, read as a whole, it suggested the Applicant had been substantially unwilling to undertake counselling at all. That was clearly not so, and Dr Blake's report on counselling was probably significant in the Board's decision. Accordingly, the Court gave a direction under s23 that the report was misleading in that respect, while rejecting the Applicant's other complaints about the material before the Board.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under S23 of the Sentencing Act 1989 Following Refusal of Parole / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination
Outcome
Application allowed in part; direction given that Dr Blake's report was misleading in the identified respect; liberty to apply reserved; costs application refused as misconceived and beyond the Court's power.
Legal Topics
['parole Board Refusal' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'prisoner Application to Court of Criminal Appeal' 'psychological Counselling Reports']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'parole'] ['parole Board Refusal' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'prisoner Application to Court of Criminal Appeal' 'psychological Counselling Reports']

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 S23 of the Sentencing Act 1989 Following Refusal of Parole / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Parole Board's decision refusing parole was made on information which was false, misleading or irrelevant within s23 of the Sentencing Act 1989." "Whether Dr Blake's report of 31 March 1999 was misleading insofar as it suggested that the Applicant had been unwilling to undergo counselling." 'Whether any other material before the Parole Board was false, misleading or irrelevant.' 'Whether the Court should give any consequential or ancillary directions after finding information was misleading.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence satisfied the Court that the Applicant had made serious efforts to obtain individual counselling. Although Dr Blake's report was not false, the omission of those efforts made the report misleading because, read as a whole, it suggested the Applicant had been substantially unwilling to undertake counselling at all. That was clearly not so, and Dr Blake's report on counselling was probably significant in the Board's decision. Accordingly, the Court gave a direction under s23 that the report was misleading in that respect, while rejecting the Applicant's other complaints about the material before the Board.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; direction given that Dr Blake's report was misleading in the identified respect; liberty to apply reserved; costs application refused as misconceived and beyond the Court's power.

Orders

  • ["Direct the Parole Board that, insofar as Dr Blake's report of 31 March 1999 suggested that the Applicant had been unwilling to undergo counselling, that report was misleading." 'Reserve liberty to the Applicant to apply, in the event no further hearing of the Board is held within a reasonable time.']