Harrison v NSW State Parole Authority - [2019] NSWSC 1783

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harrison v NSW State Parole Authority [2019] NSWSC 1783
Hearing dates: 9 December 2019
Date of orders: 13 December 2019
Decision date: 13 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – parole – decision of State Parole Authority to refuse parole – whether decision made on basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 155
Cases Cited: Clark v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 1220
Galli v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 206
Lee v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 1225
Marlin v NSW State Parole Authority [2009] NSWSC 68
Naden v NSW State Parole Authority [2017] NSWSC 479
Rozynski v Parole Board of NSW [2003] NSWCCA 214
Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 93
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Phillip Harrison (Plaintiff)
NSW State Parole Authority (First Defendant)
Attorney General of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Submitting appearance (First Defendant)
J Emmett (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/347349
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff has made an application filed on 5 November 2019 for a direction to be given to the NSW State Parole Authority (“the Authority”) in relation to a decision it made in September 2019 regarding the plaintiff. He asserts that the decision was made based on information that was false and misleading and that was “used against him” leading to his request for parole being denied and his classification being downgraded.
The Attorney General of New South Wales obtained leave to intervene and assist the Court with legal submissions by counsel. The plaintiff appeared for himself by audio-visual link (“AVL”). In his application he requested that he be given leave to appear in person “to explain his case better”, but I found his appearance by AVL to be entirely satisfactory and he was able to well articulate the bases for his application.
For the reasons that follow, I reject the application as I am not satisfied that there was anything false, misleading or irrelevant regarding the two areas of information upon which the Authority relied which have been called into question by the plaintiff.

Background facts

The plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of 20 years imprisonment for murder, with a non-parole period of 15 years. The sentence commenced on 10 September 2004 and the non-parole period expired on 9 September 2019. His head sentence will expire on 9 September 2024.
On 17 June 2019, the Serious Offenders Review Council (“SORC”) provided a report to the Authority, advising that the plaintiff’s release to parole was not appropriate.
On 11 July 2019 the plaintiff’s application for parole was considered by the Authority at a private meeting and the Authority formed an intention to refuse parole.
Notification sent on 15 July 2019 by the Secretary of the…

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 Harrison 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: [2019] NSWSC 1783
Decision Date: 13 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrison v NSW State Parole Authority involved the appellant, who sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to refuse his application for parole. The appellant contended that the decision was based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant argued that the decision was not based on the correct criteria and that the authority had failed to consider all relevant information. The appellant sought an order quashing the decision of the authority and mandating the authority to reconsider the application.

The legal issues before the court included whether the decision of the respondent was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information, and whether the authority had considered all relevant information in reaching its decision. The court was required to determine whether the decision of the authority was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. The court had to consider whether the authority had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the relevant statutory provisions.

The court found that the decision of the respondent was not based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The court held that the authority had considered all relevant information in reaching its decision. The court found that the authority had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the decision of the authority was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders. The decision of the respondent to refuse the appellant's application for parole stood.

Orders