McKenzie v Attorney General for New South Wales

The applicant, McKenzie, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that dismissed judicial review proceedings. These proceedings challenged an order made by the State Parole Authority revoking McKenzie's parole. The core of the dispute concerned whether the Parole Authority was satisfied that McKenzie had breached a condition of his parole, as required by section 170(1)(a) of the *Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999* (NSW), and whether the Authority's order was legally unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Parole Authority had properly applied the relevant legislative provisions in revoking parole, specifically focusing on the satisfaction threshold stipulated in section 170(1)(a). It also had to consider whether the Authority's decision was so unreasonable that it could be characterised as legally unreasonable, a ground for judicial review.

Ward P and Basten AJA reasoned that the Parole Authority's decision was not legally unreasonable. They found that the Authority had sufficient material before it to be satisfied of a breach of a parole condition, and that the process followed was consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Court concluded that there was no error of law in the Authority's determination.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal extended the time for filing the summons seeking leave to appeal, but ultimately refused leave to appeal. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal.