Attorney General of New South Wales v Chiew Seng Liew

In the case of Attorney General of New South Wales v Chiew Seng Liew, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Parole Authority of New South Wales to grant parole to the respondent. The respondent was a non-citizen who had served a sentence for drug trafficking and, upon release, was subject to deportation. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the legality of the Parole Authority's decision.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. Firstly, whether the Parole Authority had made a jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly concerning whether the Authority had failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Parole Authority's Operating Guidelines constituted a mandatory consideration and whether the Authority was otherwise obliged to consider the issue of deportation. The court also needed to assess whether the statutory obligations to give reasons were satisfied and if the reasons provided were adequate. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the Parole Authority qualified as a "tribunal" under section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, and if the failure to provide reasons entitled the Attorney General to an order in the nature of certiorari. The issue of costs also arose.

The court found that the Parole Authority had indeed made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the statutory obligation to consider deportation as a relevant consideration. This was deemed a mandatory consideration that the Authority was required to address. The court held that the Parole Authority's Operating Guidelines constituted a mandatory relevant consideration, which the Authority had not properly considered. As a result, the decision to grant parole was quashed. The court also determined that the Parole Authority qualified as a "tribunal" for the purposes of seeking judicial review, and the failure to provide adequate reasons entitled the Attorney General to an order in the nature of certiorari. Finally, the court awarded costs to the Attorney General.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Parole Authority to grant parole to the respondent, finding that the Authority had failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration. The court held that the Parole Authority's Operating Guidelines constituted a mandatory consideration and that the Authority was otherwise obliged to consider the issue of deportation. The court also determined that the failure to provide adequate reasons entitled the Attorney General to an order in the nature of certiorari and awarded costs to the Attorney General.