Hoyle v Director-General Corrective Services - [2019] ACTSC 226

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Hoyle v Director-General Corrective Services
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 226
Hearing Dates:	19 and 29 July 2019
DecisionDate:	30 August 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	Proceedings dismissed: see orders at [87]
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Judicial review of Corrective Services’ decisions – plaintiff serving sentence for sexual offences – plaintiff assessed as at medium to high risk of reoffending – sentencing judge previously assessed plaintiff as at low risk of reoffending – whether use of Static 99 assessment tool involves a reviewable error – whether spent convictions may be considered in completing Static 99 assessment – whether the assessment was in contempt of sentencing judge’s decision – whether there is a legislative basis for the Adult Sexual Offenders Program – whether plaintiff was unlawfully required to complete the program prior to becoming eligible for parole – proceedings dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT), ss 7, 9, 14, 73, 78(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 393 Crimes (Amendment) Act (No 3) 1983 (ACT) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), s 275 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act2005 (ACT), ss 120, 121(1) Spent Convictions Act 2000 (ACT), ss 11, 12, 16, 19(3)
Cases Cited:	DCU v State Parole Authority of New South Wales[2006] NSWSC 526 Galli v New South Wales State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 206 Hoyle v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 42; 339 FLR 11 Kocic v Commission of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368; 88 NSWLR 159 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 R v Hoyle (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 175
Texts Cited:	Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3^rd ed, vol 10
Parties:	Arthur Marshall Hoyle (Plaintiff) Director-General Corrective Services (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Plaintiff) B Buckland (Defendant)
Solicitors Self-represented (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 87 of 2019

MOSSOP J

Introduction

Arthur Hoyle, a prisoner serving sentences at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), has brought proceedings for judicial review. The defendant in the proceedings is the Director-General responsible for the administration of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT).

While incarcerated the defendant has, as part of the process of case management undertaken in relation to each detainee, completed an assessment of the plaintiff’s risk of reoffending. The plaintiff has been assessed as eligible for and suitable for participation in a program known as the Adult Sex Offenders Program (ASOP). Whether or not the plaintiff has completed that program is a matter likely to be taken into account by the Sentence Administration Board (SAB) in deciding whether or not to grant parole. Completion of the ASOP is also a matter relevant to the plaintiff’s eligibility for another program which is known as the Transition to Release Program (TRP). The plaintiff has sought review of a number of decisions of the defendant related to the assessment of his risk of reoffending, the inclusion of the ASOP within his case management plan and the processing of his application…

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 Hoyle v Director-General Corrective Services

Details

AGLC: Hoyle v Director-General Corrective Services [2019] ACTSC 226
Case: [2019] ACTSC 226
Decision Date: 30 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a challenge to decisions made by the Director-General Corrective Services regarding the plaintiff's risk assessment and eligibility for parole. The plaintiff, who was serving a sentence for sexual offences, contested the assessment that he was at a medium to high risk of reoffending. The sentencing judge had previously assessed the plaintiff as at a low risk of reoffending. The court was tasked with determining whether the use of the Static 99 assessment tool, which was employed by Corrective Services, involved a reviewable error. Additionally, the court had to decide whether spent convictions could be considered in completing the Static 99 assessment, whether the assessment was in contempt of the sentencing judge’s decision, and whether there was a legislative basis for the Adult Sexual Offenders Program. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that he was unlawfully required to complete the program before becoming eligible for parole.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the risk assessment process and the criteria for parole eligibility. It considered the statutory authority for the use of the Static 99 tool, and whether the inclusion of spent convictions in the assessment was permissible under the relevant legislation. The court also scrutinised the contempt issue by evaluating whether the risk assessment could be seen as disregarding the sentencing judge’s earlier low-risk assessment. Moreover, the court assessed the legislative basis for the Adult Sexual Offenders Program and its applicability to the plaintiff’s circumstances. The court concluded that the use of the Static 99 tool was not flawed and that spent convictions could be considered. It found no contempt in the assessment and held that the program was supported by legislation.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the proceedings. It held that the risk assessment was lawful and that the plaintiff was not unlawfully required to complete the Adult Sexual Offenders Program before becoming eligible for parole. The plaintiff's challenge to the decisions of the Director-General Corrective Services was unsuccessful, and the proceedings were dismissed. The orders reflect the court's determination that the plaintiff's contentions did not establish any grounds for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings dismissed: see orders at [87]

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.