Legal Research
Cases
Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority

Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority

Case [2011] NSWSC 935 26 August 2011

Parole

Judicial Review

Constitutional Validity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 935
Hearing dates: 01/08/2011
Decision date: 26 August 2011
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Garling J
Decision: Application dismissed
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - parole - decision of State Parole Authority to refuse parole - application to Supreme Court by offender - limited nature of relief available under s 155 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 - whether decision of State Parole Authority made on basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information -- Incorrect statement regarding timing of previous parole breach not error of substance - Other alleged errors did not form basis of decision - Limited participation in therapeutic programs not irrelevant
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Sutton (A)
New South Wales State Parole Authority (1R)
Attorney-General of New South Wales (2R)
File Number(s):

Judgment

William Lewis Sutton applies to the Court for a direction to the NSW State Parole Authority that the information on which the Authority based its decision to refuse his release on parole was false, misleading, or irrelevant.

The application is permitted by the provisions of s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

The Authority has filed a submitting appearance. The Attorney General for the State of New South Wales was granted leave to intervene and has been the contradictor on the application.

For the reasons set out below I have decided that the application should be dismissed.

Nature of application

The application is brought solely pursuant to the provisions of s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act . It is not an application for prerogative relief.

It is necessary to understand the restrictive nature of an application of this kind. It is appropriate to commence with the legislation.

Section 155 is in the following form:

" 155 Application to Supreme Court by offender :

(1) If:

(a) the Parole Authority decides that an offender should not be released on parole, and

(b) the offender alleges that the decision of the Parole Authority has been made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information,

the offender may, in accordance with the rules of the court, apply to the Supreme Court for a direction to be given to the Parole Authority as to whether the information is false, misleading or irrelevant.

(2) The Supreme Court may give such directions with respect to the information as it thinks fit.

(3) An application under this section is to be considered by the Supreme Court if and only if it is satisfied that the application is not an abuse of process and that there appears to be sufficient evidence to support the application.

(4) This section does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Parole Authority's decision otherwise than on the grounds referred to in subsection (1)."

The operative terms of this section are in substantially identical form to the terms of s 23 of the Sentencing Act 1989, which has now been repealed. However,…

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 Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority

Details

AGLC: Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 935
Case: [2011] NSWSC 935
Decision Date: 26 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sutton v NSW State Parole Authority involved an application by an offender, Sutton, to the Supreme Court for judicial review of a decision by the State Parole Authority to refuse parole. The offender argued that the Authority's decision was based on false, misleading or irrelevant information, and that the Authority had failed to consider certain relevant information. The offender sought a declaration that the decision was invalid and that the Authority was required to grant parole.

The central legal issue in the case was the scope of judicial review available to the offender in relation to the Authority's decision. The offender argued that the Authority had made errors of fact and had failed to consider relevant information, and that these errors were grounds for setting aside the decision. The Authority argued that the scope of judicial review was limited to errors of law or jurisdictional error, and that the Authority's decision was not based on false or misleading information.

The court held that the scope of judicial review in this case was limited by section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which provided that a decision of the Authority could only be set aside if it was based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The court found that the Authority's statement regarding the timing of a previous parole breach was not an error of substance, and that other alleged errors did not form the basis of the decision. The court also found that the Authority's limited participation in therapeutic programs was not irrelevant, as the offender had not demonstrated that participation in such programs was a relevant consideration in the decision-making process.

The court dismissed the offender's application for judicial review, finding that the Authority's decision was not based on false, misleading or irrelevant information. The court held that the Authority had acted within its powers in refusing parole, and that the offender was not entitled to any relief.

Orders