McKane v State of SA - [2024] SASC 149

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Judicial Review)
MCKANE v STATE OF SA
[2024] SASC 149
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McIntyre
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES - MEANING OF DECISION – REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES - MEANING OF DECISION – REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant, Mr Jeffrey Alan McKane, made an application to this Court seeking judicial review of decisions said to have been made by the Parole Board and by the Minister’s delegate under the Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983 (SA) (“the Transfer Act”). The decisions concerned whether to direct that the applicant’s parole order, issued in New South Wales, be registered in South Australia. The applicant contended that the processes involved were procedurally unfair, lacking in transparency and, in some respects, biased.
The applicant sought orders that the decisions be set aside on the basis that the respondents failed to afford him procedural fairness, had regard to irrelevant considerations, and made errors of fact that led to a denial of natural justice.
Held dismissing the application for judicial review:
1. There was no jurisdictional error in the making of the decisions.
2.The first decision identified by the applicant is not amenable to judicial review as it is not, of itself, a decision that conferred or affected legal rights.

3. In relation to the second and third decisions identified by the applicant:
a)The delegate was not required to provide reasons, nor does any alleged inadequacy in the reasons constitute a ground for judicial review.
b)The delegate considered all relevant material and did not take into account irrelevant considerations.
c)No denial of procedural fairness, nor any reasonable apprehension of bias, was established.

Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983 (SA) s 8, referred to.
Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission 1992) 175 CLR 564; Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; R v District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 116 CLR 644; Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337, considered.

MCKANE v STATE OF SA
[2024] SASC 149
Civil: Judicial Review

The applicant Jeffrey Alan McKane filed an amended originating application for review on 27 September 2024[1] (‘the application’) together with a statement of facts, issues, and contentions. He seeks a review of the following decisions:
·A decision said to have been made by the Parole Board on 15 December 2023 (‘the purported decision’);
·A decision of the Minister’s delegate not to make a direction under s 8 of the Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983 (SA) (‘Transfer Act’) on 2 April 2024 (‘the 2 April decision’); and
·A further decision of the Minister’s delegate not to make a direction under s 8 of the Transfer Act on 30 April 2024 (‘the 30 April decision’).
[1] FDN 14.
For the reasons…

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 McKane v State of SA 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: [2024] SASC 149
Decision Date: 18 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKane v State of SA is a case concerning the application for judicial review of decisions made by the State of South Australia regarding the registration of the applicant's parole order under the Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983 (SA). The applicant, who was serving a sentence in New South Wales, sought to have his parole order registered in South Australia for the purposes of section 8 of the Transfer Act. The central issue in this case is whether the decisions made by the Minister's delegate to decline the registration of the applicant's parole order were legally sound, particularly in terms of procedural fairness and the provision of reasons.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's delegate had a duty to provide reasons for the decisions made on 2 April and 30 April 2024, and whether the decisions themselves were flawed due to procedural irregularities or errors in the consideration of relevant material. The applicant argued that he was not provided with adequate reasons for the decisions, which deprived him of the opportunity to address adverse matters. Additionally, the applicant contended that the decision-maker failed to consider all relevant material, specifically the suitability of a property in Two Wells, South Australia, which the applicant had nominated as a potential residence.

The court found that, in the absence of special or exceptional circumstances, there was no general duty to provide reasons for administrative decisions. While the reasons provided for the decisions in question were limited, they did exist. The court also concluded that the decision-maker had considered all relevant material, including the assessment reports for both the Two Wells and Davoren Park addresses, despite not referencing the Two Wells address in the reasons. The court thus determined that the decisions did not constitute a jurisdictional error due to procedural fairness or the consideration of relevant material.

In summary, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held that the Minister's delegate had no duty to provide reasons and that the decisions were not flawed by procedural irregularities or errors in the consideration of material.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow I dismiss the application.Background On 31 January 2013 the applicant was sentenced in New South Wales (‘NSW’) to imprisonment for a period of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 years commencing on 12 May 2011 for one count of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person over 10 years, three counts of using a child under the age of 14 years to make child abuse material, one count of aggravated filming a person in a private act without consent, two counts of indecent assault on a person under 16 years of age and one count of possession of child abuse material. The applicant originally came from South Australia (‘SA’). His family is based in this State. He has no ties to NSW and indeed his victims, with whom he is not permitted contact, likely reside in that State. On 3 November 2023, the Commissioner of Corrective Services in NSW requested the applicant’s parole order be registered in SA for the purposes of s 8 of the Transfer Act. The purported decision relates to an assessment of the applicant’s proposed residence in Two Wells, SA on 7 December 2023. The person who inspected the premises found the Two Wells address suitable, however that opinion was not endorsed by the report writer’s supervisor for the reasons set out in the report.[2] It appears that the report and those reasons were not provided to the applicant until he received Ms Cross’ affidavit in these proceedings. The only notification was to applicant’s NSW corrections officer by email dated 15 December 2023 which stated:Please be advised the home assessment on the residence nominated by Mr McKane has not been supported, can you please ensure with Mr McKane if he has an alternative address for consideration or would he like me to progress the application to the [Parole Board of South Australia] as it is?[2] FDN 10; Exhibit KC-4. His parole officer requested details as to why the premises were unsuitable, but these were not provided.[3] An alternative address in Davoren Park was supplied by the applicant on or about 22 December 2023.[4][3] FDN 15; Exhibit JM4.[4] FDN 2 at [9]. On 2 April 2024, the Minister’s delegate declined to direct the Registrar of Transferred Parole Orders (“the Registrar”) to register the applicant’s parole order in SA. The reasons for that decision are set in the approval decision form conveyed to the applicant under cover of an email dated 9 April 2024. The reasons were succinctly stated as “accommodation is unsuitable due to no control over co-tenants”. The accommodation in question was the Davoren Park address. There is no reference to the Two Wells address in the reasons.[5][5] FDN 10 at [15] – [16]. The applicant wrote to the Parole Board on 15 April 2024 indicating it was likely he would be issuing these proceedings and making a number of submissions concerning the Two Wells and Davoren Park addresses.[6] On 30 April 2024 the Minister’s delegate, after reviewing the matter, again declined to direct the Registrar to register the applicant’s parole order in SA. The reasons for that decision are set out in an email sent on 30 April 2024 as follows:the owner has indicated she may rent out other room in the premises to other after Mr McKane moves in. As such, the board and Mr McKane would have no control over who might reside at the premises. Given the nature of his offending, the premises are deemed unsuitable by the [B]oard.[7][6] FDN 2; Exhibit JM2.[7] FDN 10 at [18] – [19].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

It was however unfortunate to say the least that the very comprehensive report on the Two Wells property was not provided to the applicant or his NSW parole officer. The proposed address in Two Wells was rejected and the applicant did not know why. He supplied the alternative address in Davoren Park in the hope that this would be suitable. In the absence of his being provided with the report, in much the same way that a report on a proposed bail address is routinely provided to bail applicants, the applicant did not know what issues had been raised in the report and could not specifically address them. This seems a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The April 2024 decisions In answer to the Applicant’s submissions concerning the failure to give any or any adequate reasons the respondent contends that there is no general rule of common law or principle of natural justice that requires reasons to be given for administrative decisions.[14] There may be special or exceptional circumstances in which a duty to give reasons apply. It is said that no such circumstances apply in the present case. Specifically, the respondent contends that the ordinary construction of the Transfer Act and the nature of the decision-making function in s 8 does not justify a departure from the general rules. It is said that insofar as the applicant complains of a failure to give reasons, or a failure to give adequate reasons, this cannot form the basis for the relief sought either as its own ground of review or as a component of the complaint regarding procedural fairness. The respondent contends that in any event, the reasons for both the 2 April decision and the 30 April decision are set out in those decisions. Accordingly, it is said that there cannot be any relief granted on the basis of an alleged failure to give reasons with respect to either decision. [14] Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656. I accept the respondent’s submissions that, absent special or exceptional circumstances, the delegate did not have a duty to provide reasons. I also accept that reasons, albeit less than comprehensive, were provided for both the 2 April and 30 April decisions. In the absence of a duty to give reasons, it cannot be a jurisdictional error to not give reasons or not give adequate reasons. The applicant contends that the delegate did not consider all relevant material when she made the 2 April decision. In particular, he says that she did not consider the Two Wells address. It is not surprising that the applicant formed that view given the fact that the decision only referred to the Davoren Park address. Nonetheless, the affidavit filed in these proceedings identifies the material that the decision maker considered in reaching these decisions.[15] This material includes the sentencing remarks, the application forms and attachments, the home visit assessment on both the Two Wells and Davoren Park addresses, information from Corrective Services NSW responding to a query about rehabilitation undertaken by the applicant and a file review report from Corrective Services NSW. I accept that the decision maker did consider this material and accordingly it cannot be said that she failed to consider all relevant material albeit the material was not referred to in the reasons for decision. [15] FDN 10 at [14] – [15].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Section 8 of the Transfer Act provides:[9][9] Parole Orders (Transfer) Act (SA) 1983 at [8] (‘Transfer Act’). 8 -Direction for registration of parole order under this Act (1) At the request in writing of the designated authority for another State or a Territory of the Commonwealth, the Minister may, by instrument in writing, direct the Registrar to register under this Act a parole order that was in force at the time of the request under a law of that State or Territory (2) The Minister shall not direct the registration under this Act of a parole order in force under a law of another State or Territory of the Commonwealth unless — (a) he is satisfied, on consideration of relevant information and documents forwarded to him by the designated authority for that other State or Territory, that, having regard to the interests of the parolee, it is desirable that the parole order be so registered; and (b) either— (i) the parolee has given his consent to, or has requested, the registration of the parole order under this Act; or (ii) the parolee is residing in this State. Accordingly, a decision under s 8 requires: ·a written request for registration of a parole order in SA to be made by the designated authority of another jurisdiction, ·the parolee’s consent or request for the registration of parole order; and ·the Minister’s satisfaction that the registration is “desirable”. The first two requirements are met in this case. There is no dispute that an appropriate written request was made by the appropriate NSW authorities and that Mr McKane consents and indeed wishes to have his parole transferred to SA. The issue relates to the third requirements that the Minister be satisfied that the registration is “desirable” following consideration of the material provided by the other jurisdiction and having regard to the interests of the parolee. Plainly, the decision of the Minister involves the exercise of a wide discretion. The applicant’s contentions The applicant filed written submissions[10] and amplified these with oral submissions in the hearing. At the heart of the applicant’s contentions is that he was not provided with reasons, or adequate reasons, for the decisions and that he was not given the opportunity to address any matters adverse to him. [10] FDN 16. In relation to the purported decision, the applicant contends that the failure to give reasons, taking into account irrelevant facts and asserted errors of fact constitutes jurisdictional error and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. In relation to the 2 April decision, the applicant contends that he was not afforded natural justice, in that he was not given the opportunity to put forward additional material prior to the decision. In relation to the 30 April decision, the applicant contends that he was not afforded procedural fairness and that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. He further says that the delegate did not properly consider all relevant matters including the availability of the Two Wells address or any orders that could be made to ameliorate the issues identified with the Davoren Park address when making the 2 April and 30 April decisions. The purported decision