Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 935

Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 935

The application failed because s 155 confines the Court to whether information forming the basis of the State Parole Authority's refusal was false, misleading or irrelevant. The incorrect reference to reoffending on the applicant's last parole order was not an error of substance given the applicant's history of parole breaches and reoffending; the other alleged inaccuracies in the Pre Release Report were not shown to have formed the basis of the Authority's decision or to be false in the required sense; and the applicant's non-completion of therapeutic programs was relevant to parole regardless of why he had not completed them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a Direction Concerning Information Relied on by the State Parole Authority in Refusing Parole / Supreme Court Hearing of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['refusal of Parole' 's 155 Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'limited Supreme Court Review of Parole Decisions' 'therapeutic Programs and Risk of Reoffending']
['criminal Law' 'parole' 'administrative Law'] ['refusal of Parole' 's 155 Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999' 'false, Misleading or Irrelevant Information' 'limited Supreme Court Review of Parole Decisions' 'therapeutic Programs and Risk of Reoffending']

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 S 155 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a Direction Concerning Information Relied on by the State Parole Authority in Refusing Parole / Supreme Court Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the State Parole Authority's refusal of parole was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information within s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999." 'Whether the statement that the applicant had reoffended and received a custodial sentence on his last parole order was a false or misleading error of substance.' "Whether alleged inaccuracies in the Probation and Parole Service Pre Release Report formed the basis of the Authority's decision." "Whether the applicant's limited participation in therapeutic programs was irrelevant because he said he had been prevented from undertaking them."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because s 155 confines the Court to whether information forming the basis of the State Parole Authority's refusal was false, misleading or irrelevant. The incorrect reference to reoffending on the applicant's last parole order was not an error of substance given the applicant's history of parole breaches and reoffending; the other alleged inaccuracies in the Pre Release Report were not shown to have formed the basis of the Authority's decision or to be false in the required sense; and the applicant's non-completion of therapeutic programs was relevant to parole regardless of why he had not completed them.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application filed 17 February 2011 for directions pursuant to s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 is dismissed.']