Terry Sampson v NSW State Parole Authority - [2012] NSWSC 933

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Terry Sampson v NSW State Parole Authority [2012] NSWSC 933
Hearing dates: 22 February 2012
Decision date: 30 March 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
Application dismissed

Catchwords: PAROLE - application under s 155, Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act - whether refusal of parole based on false, misleading or irrelevant information - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Sutton v New South Wales State Parole Authority [2011] NSWSC 935
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Terry Sampson (applicant)
State Parole Authority of New South Wales (1st respondent)
Attorney General of New South Wales (2nd respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (applicant)
Anina C Johnson (2nd respondent)
Solicitors:
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (2nd respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/350216

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Terry Sampson, is serving a sentence for serious offences of violence. His non-parole period has expired but on 19 July 2011 he was refused release to parole by the State Parole Authority. He has applied to this court under s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a direction that the Authority's determination was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information. The Authority has filed a submitting appearance but the Attorney General has been joined and has been represented before me by Ms Johnson, a solicitor advocate with the State Crown Solicitor's office.

Parole was refused because of what was seen to be the need for the applicant to complete what is known as the Violent Offenders Treatment Program and otherwise to address issues of anger and violence. It was on that basis, and that basis only, that parole was refused.

In its decision the Authority noted that the violence used by the applicant in the commission of the subject offences was extreme. It addressed the question whether appropriate treatment might be available in the community by reference to a letter under the hand of Danielle Matsuo, the acting director of the Sex and Violence Offender Therapeutic Programs. Ms Matsuo wrote:

"It is the view of Corrective Services NSW that there is presently no treatment program offered in the community of the required intensity for a high risk/needs violent offender. Individual risk management sessions may assist an untreated offender, that is focusing on warning signs for offending and development of a self-management plan, but these would not address the underlying causal factors for offending."

The Authority noted that it needed to heed that cautionary advice, as it described it, observing that it could only make an order for parole if it were in the public interest.

The application is based on a number of grounds, the most significant being that the conclusion that the applicant should complete the Violent Offenders Treatment Program was based on false or misleading information. He has been assessed in the past by reference to the Revised Level of Service Inventory, to which I will refer as LSI-R, as at medium risk of…

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 Terry Sampson v NSW State 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: [2012] NSWSC 933
Decision Date: 30 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Terry Sampson versus the New South Wales State Parole Authority, the applicant sought a review of the authority's refusal to grant him parole. The application was brought under section 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act, with the central issue being whether the refusal was based on false, misleading, or irrelevant information. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues at the heart of the matter were whether the Parole Authority had relied on any false, misleading, or irrelevant information when denying the applicant parole, and if the authority's decision was flawed as a result. The applicant contended that the decision-makers had erred in their assessment by failing to take into account certain positive aspects of his rehabilitation and potential for successful reintegration into society. The respondent, the NSW State Parole Authority, argued that the decision was well-founded and based on accurate information.

The Court, in reviewing the decision, examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the appropriate standard of review. It was held that the Parole Authority's decision-making process must be rational and based on accurate information. The Court found that, while some information presented to the authority may have been misleading or irrelevant, this did not lead to an unreasonable decision overall. The Court concluded that the Parole Authority's refusal of parole was not based on false, misleading, or irrelevant information, and the decision was therefore valid.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the decision of the NSW State Parole Authority. The Court did not make any orders as to costs, as it was a matter of no substantial public interest.

Orders