Ayoub v NSW Parole Authority - [2014] NSWSC 516

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ayoub v NSW Parole Authority [2014] NSWSC 516
Hearing dates: 1 May 2014
Decision date: 05 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Dismiss the application.

Catchwords: APPLICATION - application under s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) against decision of the NSW Parole Authority - abuse of process -no evidence of Authority failing to take into account importance of a period of parole before the conclusion of offender's sentence - score on Static 99 a matter of opinion rather than fact - no false, misleading or irrelevant information
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 155
Cases Cited: R v Naudi [2003] NSWCCA 160
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ronnie Ayoub (Plaintiff)
NSW Parole Authority (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff in person
G Faramarzi (Solicitor) (Defendant)
Solicitors:
No instructing solicitor (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/311719
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

Mr Ayoub is presently in custody serving a term of imprisonment of four years and six months, which commenced on 27 February 2010 following his conviction of the following offences: sexual intercourse without consent; inflict actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse with victim and two counts of act with intent to pervert the course of justice.

His three-year non-parole period expired on 26 February 2013. His application for parole was refused in January 2013. He commenced these proceedings by application filed on 11 October 2013. However, before his application was heard, the State Parole Authority (the Authority) considered again whether he ought be released on parole. On 9 January 2014, the Authority refused his application for parole.

When the matter came before me, as Duty Judge, for hearing on 1 May 2014, Mr Ayoub sought to amend his application, in order to challenge the refusal on 9 January 2014. The grounds of the application remain the same. As there was no objection to the amendment by the Attorney-General, I allowed the amendment.

Relevant legislation

Section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act) provides:

155 Application to Supreme Court by offender

(1) If:

(a) the Parole Authority decides that an offender should not be released on parole, and

(b) the offender alleges that the decision of the Parole Authority has been made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information,

the offender may, in accordance with rules of court, apply to the Supreme Court for a direction to be given to the Parole Authority as to whether the information was false, misleading or irrelevant.

(2) The Supreme Court may give such directions with respect to the information as it thinks fit.

(3) An application under this section is to be considered by the Supreme Court if and only if it is satisfied that the application is not an abuse of process and that there appears to be sufficient evidence to support the application.

(4) This section does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ayoub v NSW Parole Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 516
Decision Date: 05 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ayoub v NSW Parole Authority, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the NSW Parole Authority. The applicant challenged the decision as an abuse of process, arguing that the authority failed to consider the significance of a parole period prior to the conclusion of their sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the legal issues raised by the applicant's submission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the NSW Parole Authority had indeed abused its process by not adequately considering the relevance of a parole period. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was any evidence that the authority had failed to take into account the importance of a parole period before the conclusion of the offender's sentence. The court was also required to assess whether the score on the Static 99 was a matter of opinion rather than fact and if there was any false, misleading or irrelevant information presented.

The court found that there was no evidence to support the applicant's claim that the NSW Parole Authority had failed to consider the importance of a parole period. The score on the Static 99 was determined to be a matter of opinion rather than fact, and the court concluded that there was no false, misleading or irrelevant information presented. Consequently, the court held that the application for judicial review was unsuccessful, and the decision of the NSW Parole Authority was upheld.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the decision of the NSW Parole Authority. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders