Channell v NSW State Parole Authority - [2006] NSWSC 124

CITATION: CHANNELL v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 124

HEARING DATE(S): 6 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
10 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

DECISION: Application refused.

PARTIES: Alan Channell
NSW State Parole Authority

FILE NUMBER(S): SC PB0001/2006

SOLICITORS: No appearance
Crown Solicitor, Belinda Baker

- 4 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

HULME J

Friday, 10 March 2006 PB 0001/2006

Alan CHANNELL v NSW STATE PAROLE AUTHORITY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings arise in consequence of an application made on 19 September 2005 by the Plaintiff under Section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. So far as is presently relevant, the Section provides:-

(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.

2 On 8 September 1999 the Plaintiff had been sentenced by Judge Knight in respect of something over 20 offences. The effective total sentence was one of 8 years including a non-parole period of 5 years both such periods to commence on 23 August 1999. The non-parole period thus expired on 22 August 2004.

3 On 1 September 2005 the Parole Board considered the Plaintiff’s case and determined that he not be released from a correctional centre until further review by the Board for the following reasons:-

“The Board has sufficient reason to believe that if released from custody at this time the offender would not be able to adapt to normal lawful community life; risk of re-offending; need to further address offending behaviour (sex offending); unsuitable post release plan.”

4 Before the Board on that occasion was a report of Mr Fitzsimmons of the Long Bay Parole Unit that “there are no appropriate services in the area where (the Plaintiff) plans to live.” There was, in addition some oral evidence on the topic. Unfortunately the transcript to the proceedings before the Board, which were obviously sound recorded is in some respects not clear. However, dealing with the evidence of Mr Meyers, the unit leader at the Long Bay Parole Unit, the transcript reads:-

Q. Mr Fitzsimmons apparently regards it as unsuitable because he says that close supervision would be unable to be provided and there are no facilities for the treatment of sex offenders in the area, referring,…

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 Channell v NSW State 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: [2006] NSWSC 124
Decision Date: 10 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Channell v NSW State Parole Authority involves a legal challenge by Alan Channell against the decision of the NSW State Parole Authority not to release him on parole. Channell sought a judicial review under Section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, alleging that the Parole Authority's decision was based on false, misleading, or irrelevant information. The matter was heard by Hulme J and judgment was delivered on 10 March 2006, with the application being refused.

The legal issues before the court centered on whether the information relied upon by the Parole Authority in its decision was false, misleading, or irrelevant. Channell specifically contested the Parole Authority's assertion that there were no appropriate services in the area where he planned to reside, which Dubbo, and its surrounding areas, were. Channell argued that there must be some psychological or therapeutic support available, particularly for sex offenders, in the Dubbo area. The court needed to determine if the information provided to the Parole Authority was accurate and if it appropriately informed the Authority's decision.

Hulme J found that while the Parole Authority had not relied on the incorrect information about Channell's tattoo, the critical issue was the availability of psychological support for sex offenders in Dubbo. Channell did not provide any documentary evidence to support his claim that such support was available. The court noted that the Parole Authority had not acted on false, misleading, or irrelevant information regarding the availability of such services. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no basis to direct the Parole Authority to reconsider its decision, and the application was dismissed.

The court emphasized the importance of having accurate information before the Parole Authority when making decisions about parole. It suggested that future applications should be supported by clear and documented evidence regarding the availability of necessary services in the areas in question.

Orders