Hart v Parole Board - [2017] SASC 184

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
HART v PAROLE BOARD
[2017] SASC 184
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley
14 December 2017
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE - EXTENSION OF TIME - PARTICULAR CASES
Application for permission to proceed with an action for judicial review pursuant to rule 200 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA).
The action for judicial review seeks to review a decision of the Parole Board made on 7 February 2017 refusing the plaintiff parole and precluding her from applying again until after 17 January 2018. The action was commenced on 6 October 2017, meaning that it is two months out of time by virtue of SCR 200(1). Accordingly, pursuant to SCR 200(2), the action cannot proceed without the Court’s permission.
The defendant opposes the grant of permission firstly, because of a lack of utility and secondly, because it argues the application has no reasonable prospect of success.
Held: Application for permission and extension of time refused. Given the delay in this action, even if permission and an extension of time were granted, it is unlikely that a decision on the action for judicial review would be delivered before 17 January 2018. Even if the action succeeded, the Court could do no more than quash the decision of the Board of 7 February 2017 and order that it forthwith consider whether the plaintiff should be granted parole. Before that time, the plaintiff will have become eligible to apply again for parole. In the circumstances the action is no longer of any real practical significance (at [12] and [13]).
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 200, r 200C, referred to.
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; Ferdinands v District Court of SA [2010] SASC 265; La Roche v Cormack & Ors (1991) 33 FCR; Collins v The State of South Australia (unreported judgment of Olsson J) No. S 6960, 20 November 1998, considered.

HART v PAROLE BOARD
[2017] SASC 184
Civil: Application
STANLEY J.
Introduction

This is an application for permission to proceed with an action for judicial review pursuant to rule 200 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) (SCR). The action for judicial review seeks to review a decision of the Parole Board (the Board) made on 7 February 2017 refusing parole for the plaintiff and precluding her from applying again for parole until after 17 January 2018. The Board gave written reasons for its decision.
The action was commenced on 6 October 2017. SCR 200(1) requires that an action for judicial review be commenced as soon as practicable after the date when the grounds for the review arose and, in any event, within six months after that date. Consequently, the action is out of time. Pursuant to SCR 200(2), in these circumstances the action cannot proceed without the Court’s permission.
The Board opposes the grant of permission on two bases. First, that there is a lack of utility and, second, that…

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.

Continue reading Hart v Parole Board

Details

AGLC: Hart v Parole Board [2017] SASC 184
Case: [2017] SASC 184
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hart brought an application for judicial review against the Parole Board, challenging the Board's decision to deny parole. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court. The primary issue for the Court was whether to grant an extension of time for Hart to file an application for judicial review and, if so, whether to grant permission for the application itself.

The Court considered the principles governing extensions of time in judicial review applications, particularly the requirement that the applicant demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the action still has utility. The Board argued that the delay was unreasonable and that the application had lost its utility given the passage of time since the parole decision. Hart did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, nor could he demonstrate that the application still had utility. The Court was satisfied that the Board's decision to deny parole remained effective and that further judicial review would not serve a meaningful purpose.

The Court found that the application did not meet the threshold for an extension of time and that there was no compelling reason to permit the application to proceed. The Court refused permission for the application, concluding that the action lacked utility and that the delay was unreasonable. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court did not grant an extension of time or permission for the application, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

STANLEY J

Accordingly, I accept the Board’s submission that the action now lacks utility and refuse permission and an extension of time. Conclusion I would not grant an extension of time. I would refuse permission, pursuant to SCR 200(2).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STANLEY J

Full text does not contain this section.