Legal Research
Cases
Tamer v Parole Authority of NSW

Tamer v Parole Authority of NSW

Case [2024] NSWSC 1152 11 September 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tamer v Parole Authority of NSW [2024] NSWSC 1152
Hearing dates: 10 September 2024
Date of orders: 11 September 2024
Decision date: 11 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
The plaintiff's amended summons is dismissed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – parole – where plaintiff is a prisoner serving the balance of his parole - revocation of parole by Parole Authority – complaint as to effective date of revocation set by Parole Authority – expiry date for the sentence following arrest on warrant issued by Parole Authority – rights of review under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences Act) 1999 (NSW) – relevant law and reasonableness - whether so unreasonable as to amount to jurisdictional error - whether this Court should remit for reconsideration – meaning of “at large” – plaintiff’s amended summons dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144
Attorney General of New South Walesv Chiew Seng Liew [2012] NSWSC 1223
Buck v Bavone [1976] 135 CLR 110
Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022)] 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3
Hala v R [2024] NSWCCA 146
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30
Morrison v R [2009] NSWCCA 211; (2009) 197 A Crim R 103
Palizio v NSW Parole Authority [2013] NSWSC 1829
Whan v McConaghy (1984) 153 CLR 631

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ayman Tamer (Plaintiff)
Parole Authority of NSW (First Defendant)
Attorney General for NSW (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T F Woods (Plaintiff)
C Nguyen (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Olympus Law Partners (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/292329
Publication restriction: Nil

EXTEMPORE jUDGMENT (REVISED)

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Ayman Tamer is a prisoner serving the balance of his parole. The first defendant is the Parole Authority of New South Wales (the Parole Authority). The Parole Authority has filed a submitting appearance.
The Attorney General for New South Wales was granted leave to intervene and became the second defendant. The second defendant is the active defendant in this Court.
By his amended summons filed on 3 September 2024 the plaintiff seeks an order that his application made to the Parole Authority on 22 July 2024, which sought to vary the effective date of revocation of his parole, be remitted to the Parole Authority for reconsideration.
There is some urgency to the matter. It came before me for hearing yesterday, 10 September 2024. The plaintiff contends that on the remitter to the Parole Authority, the authority would, after proper reconsideration, make orders with the result that his sentence will expire on 16 September 2024. Clearly, if the plaintiff is correct, the matter will need to be remitted to the Parole Authority with…

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 Tamer v Parole Authority of NSW

Details

AGLC: Tamer v Parole Authority of NSW [2024] NSWSC 1152
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1152
Decision Date: 11 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal by the plaintiff, Tamer, against the decision of the Parole Authority of New South Wales to revoke his parole and set the effective date of revocation. Tamer, who was serving the balance of his parole, was arrested and detained following a warrant issued by the Parole Authority. He challenged the decision on the basis that the effective date set by the Parole Authority was unreasonable and amounted to a jurisdictional error. The plaintiff sought a review of the decision under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences Act) 1999 (NSW).

The Court was required to consider whether the Parole Authority’s decision was so unreasonable as to amount to a jurisdictional error. The Court also had to determine whether it should remit the matter to the Parole Authority for reconsideration, and what the term "at large" meant in the context of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences Act) 1999 (NSW). The Court needed to examine the relevant law and principles of administrative law to resolve these issues.

The Court held that the Parole Authority’s decision was not so unreasonable as to amount to a jurisdictional error. The Court found that the term "at large" meant that Tamer was free to go about his affairs without restriction, except for the conditions of his parole. The Court also held that the effective date of revocation set by the Parole Authority was not unreasonable and did not amount to a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the plaintiff’s amended summons was dismissed, and the decision of the Parole Authority was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court.

Orders