Pulini v Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Pulini, sought judicial review of the Assistant Minister’s decision to refuse their parole. The applicants were sentenced to imprisonment for serious offences and were subject to parole reports recommending their release. They made submissions to the Assistant Minister regarding their rehabilitative progress and the impact of their incarceration on their youngest child. The applicants alleged that the Assistant Minister failed to consider their submissions and made decisions that denied them natural justice. The court was required to determine whether the Assistant Minister failed to consider the applicants’ submissions, whether her reliance on the risk to community safety was illogical or legally unreasonable, and whether her reasons were inadequate.

The court found that the Assistant Minister failed to consider the applicants’ submission that their rehabilitative progress made the present time optimal for their release on parole. The court held that the duty to act judicially is coupled with the duty to consider the case put forward by a party, and that the Assistant Minister had failed to recognise and deal with the case put by the applicants. The court also found that the Assistant Minister failed to consider the submission that the applicants’ youngest child was struggling in their absence and needed their parents’ support. However, the court held that the Assistant Minister’s reliance on the risk to community safety in the absence of express reasoning or findings was not illogical or legally unreasonable. The court further held that the Assistant Minister’s reasons were adequate.

The applicants’ applications for judicial review were allowed. The Assistant Minister’s decisions to refuse parole were set aside, and the matters were remitted for reconsideration. The Assistant Minister was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs of the application. The court held that the Assistant Minister’s failure to consider the applicants’ submissions denied them natural justice. The court also held that the Assistant Minister’s reliance on the risk to community safety in the absence of express reasoning or findings was not illogical or legally unreasonable, and that her reasons were adequate.