Palizio v NSW Parole Authority - [2013] NSWSC 1829

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Palizio v NSW Parole Authority [2013] NSWSC 1829
Hearing dates: 02/12/2013
Decision date: 13 December 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL
Decision:
Plaintiff's summons dismissed.
Plaintiff's application under Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) refused.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Application under s69 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - application to quash defendant's decision confirming revocation of parole of plaintiff - plaintiff goes to Western Australia in breach of parole conditions - plaintiff commits further offences in Western Australia - plaintiff sentenced to imprisonment in Western Australia - whether imprisonment in Western Australia counts towards service of parole period in NSW - meaning of s171(3) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) - meaning of "taken into custody" and "at large" as used in section - whether decision of defendant manifestly unreasonable - whether defendant failed to have regard to a mandatory relevant consideration - plaintiff's summons dismissed - plaintiff's application under Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) refused.
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) - s171(3)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) - s12(1)
Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 (NSW)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - s69
Cases Cited: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation - [1948] 1 KB 223
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; 170 CLR 321
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58; 160 A Crim R 145
Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 215
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125; 293 ALR 384
Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones [2013] HCA 35; 87 ALJR 985
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 297 ALR 225
Morrison v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 211; 197 A Crim R 103
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 at 381
R v Adams [1935] HCA 62; 53 CLR 563
Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane [1987] HCA 12; 162 CLR 514
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6; [1977] AC 1014
Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25; 163 CLR 54
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bagio Palizio - Plaintiff
New South Wales State Parole Authority - Defendant
Attorney General for the State of New South Wales - Intervenor
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M Wise/Mr A Solomon-Bridge - Plaintiff
Submitting Appearance - Defendant
Mr J Hutton - Intervenor
Solicitors:
Arslan Lawyers - Plaintiff
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor - Defendant
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor - Intervenor

File Number(s): 2013/355115

Judgment

HIS HONOUR:

Nature of Proceedings

The plaintiff moved the court pursuant to s69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) for the following orders:

1. A declaration 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Palizio v NSW 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: [2013] NSWSC 1829
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Palizio v NSW Parole Authority, the plaintiff sought to have the decision of the NSW Parole Authority quashed, which had confirmed the revocation of his parole. The plaintiff had breached the conditions of his parole by travelling to Western Australia, where he committed further offences. He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment in Western Australia. The plaintiff argued that his imprisonment in Western Australia should count towards the service of his parole period in NSW, and sought to have the Parole Authority's decision quashed on various grounds, including that it was manifestly unreasonable and that the Authority had failed to have regard to a mandatory relevant consideration. The court had to determine the meaning of certain terms in s171(3) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), including "taken into custody" and "at large". The court considered the legislative history and purpose of the relevant provisions and held that the Parole Authority's decision was not manifestly unreasonable and that it had not failed to have regard to a mandatory relevant consideration. The plaintiff's summons was dismissed and his application under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) was refused. This case highlights the importance of considering the legislative history and purpose of relevant provisions when interpreting ambiguous statutory language.

Orders