G v Chief Executive, Dept of Corrective Services

The applicant, who was serving a 12-year sentence for sexual offences and other mistreatment of boys under the age of 16, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's delegate to refuse his application for remission of sentence. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the delegate's decision was flawed by consideration of irrelevant factors, omission of relevant considerations, unreasonableness, procedural unfairness, and application of policy and merits of the case.

The primary issues before the court were whether the delegate incorrectly considered that the applicant had applied to be a foster carer of the victims, whether the delegate incorrectly relied upon an assault charge which the applicant claimed had been dismissed, whether the delegate incorrectly relied upon evidence that was not presented at trial, whether the delegate incorrectly relied upon the applicant's failure to participate in the Sexual Offender's Treatment Program, and whether the delegate incorrectly failed to consider the applicant's participation in an external counselling program. The court was also asked to consider whether the delegate's decision was unreasonable in light of a psychological report.

The court found that the delegate's decision was not flawed by consideration of irrelevant factors, omission of relevant considerations, unreasonableness, procedural unfairness, or application of policy and merits of the case. The court held that the delegate's consideration of the applicant's application to be a foster carer of the victims was relevant to the assessment of the risk of reoffending, and that the delegate's reliance upon the assault charge, the evidence not presented at trial, and the applicant's failure to participate in the Sexual Offender's Treatment Program were all relevant to the assessment of the applicant's suitability for remission. The court further held that the delegate's failure to consider the applicant's participation in an external counselling program did not render the decision unreasonable, as the program was not specifically designed to address the applicant's offending behaviour. The court also found that the delegate's decision was not unreasonable in light of the psychological report, as the report did not provide a clear indication of the applicant's suitability for remission. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.