Wilson v New Zealand Parole Board
[2023] NZHC 1003
•1 May 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2022-404-962
[2023] NZHC 1003
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 BETWEEN
IVAN WILSON
Applicant
AND
NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD
First respondent
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL on behalf of THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Second respondent
Hearing: 5 April 2023 Appearances:
G E Minchin for applicant
First respondent abiding and appearance excused
S B McCusker and (remotely) A S Bagchi for second respondentDate of judgment:
1 May 2023
JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 1 May 2023 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Counsel/Solicitors:
G E Minchin, Barrister, Auckland V J Owen, Barrister, Auckland
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington Exeo Legal, Wellington
WILSON v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2023] NZHC 1003 [1 May 2023]
[1] Ivan Wilson — serving a sentence of preventive detention on nine convictions of three offences of each sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation and indecent assault against an adolescent boy — has been eligible to be released from detention on parole since 2014.1 His amended statement of claim dated 18 January 2023 raises ten grounds for judicial review of multiple contended decisions made by the first and second respondents (respectively, the Board and the Department), relevant to his continued custody.
[2] With reference to its earlier August 2021 decision, the Board’s 13 May 2022 decision was there remained a need for Mr Wilson to “undertake reintegrative testing”.2 Mr Wilson claims that May 2022 decision erred in its reliance on the Department’s psychologist’s report of his custodial experience and his subsequent dealings with her and seeks a variety of declarations those heads of judicial review are made out.
[3] The granularity of Mr Wilson’s approach tends to overlook the critical issue in any judicial review proceeding: whether a decision susceptible to judicial review is made “in accordance with law, fairly and reasonably”.3 The latter words are terms of art in judicial review, respectively broadly meaning procedurally regular and substantively rational. Relief on judicial review generally is discretionary.4 The key questions are as to “the nature and extent of the power given to the decision-maker, and whether the decision-maker has acted in accordance with that power together with any other requirements or limits imposed by law”.5
[4] An indication of Board decisions’ susceptibility to judicial review may be drawn from the Board chairperson’s precursor review of any Board decision on grounds the Board:6
1 R v W HC Gisborne CRI-2010-016-278, 27 August 2010; upheld on appeal, W (CA591/2010) v R
[2011] NZCA 135; leave to appeal dismissed, Wilson v R [2016] NZSC 47.
2 Re Wilson Parole Board Decision, 13 May 2022.
3 New Zealand Fishing Industry Association Inc v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [1988] 1 NZLR 544 (CA) at 552.
4 Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2016] NZSC 62, [2016] 1 NZLR 1056 at [112].
5 New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners Inc v Minister of Police [2020] NZHC 1456 at [85].
6 Parole Act 2002, s 67(3).
(a) failed to comply with the procedures set out in this Act and any regulations made under it; or
(b) made an error of law; or
(c) failed to comply with a policy of the Board …, which resulted in unfairness to the offender; or
(d) based its decision on erroneous or irrelevant information that was material to the decision reached; or
(e) acted without jurisdiction.
On such review, the reviewer must “confirm, quash, or amend the decision; or … refer the matter back to the Board with a direction to reconsider and decide the matter”.7
[5] I consider the Board’s May 2022 decision from those perspectives, addressing Mr Wilson’s pleaded grounds for review as I go. The absence of other than declaratory relief sought here is striking; Mr Wilson does not seek to quash or amend any Board exercise of statutory power, including any statutory power of decision, or to have the Board reconsider it. Instead he seeks only declarations specified instances in preparation for and in the course of the Board’s deliberations constitute reviewable error. He has not sought the Board chairperson’s precursor review, which might justify withholding any relief for which Mr Wilson otherwise may be eligible.8
Background
[6] The Board’s 16 November 2020 decision accepted Mr Wilson’s then-counsel’s proposal consideration of Mr Wilson’s release on parole should be deferred for “a short period of time”, to enable “a graduated path of reintegration” after Mr Wilson obtained a minimum security classification. The Board concluded “without that reintegration his risk is undue and parole is declined”, and sought to see Mr Wilson again in August 2021.9
[7] I am not provided with a copy of the Board’s August 2021 decision, but its May 2022 decision identified it saw him then, when “[t]he idea was he would be
7 Section 67(5).
8 Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 3476 at [6]; Wislang v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1974] 1 NZLR 29 (SC) at 43; Daemar v Gilliand [1981] 1 NZLR 61 (CA) at 64; Fraser v State Services Commission [1984] 1 NZLR 116 (CA) at 123; Norrie v Senate of the University of Auckland [1984] 1 NZLR 129 (CA) at 136.
9 Re Wilson Parole Board Decision, 16 November 2020.
released to Residences at ASCF initially and then further reintegrated testing”,10 but “he hasn’t had the opportunity to do so”.11 By ‘reintegrated’ (or ‘reintegrative’) testing is meant to trial Mr Wilson’s conduct in the community as not presenting undue risk on release. The Board added:12
We identified Mr Wilson’s need to undertake reintegration back in August 2021. … [A]s we have said we were satisfied then he needed to do so and what’s happened since in prison has only confirmed our view of that need. So we are satisfied that that remains and that Mr Wilson must undertake reintegrative testing. We hope that that can take place as soon as possible.
[8] By ‘what’s happened since in prison’, the Board was referring to some of the evidence before it:13
At paragraph 10 and 11 of the psychological report the psychologist reports on information provided by prison officers about concern that they had with respect to contact between Mr Wilson and a younger man. The sections in the report deal with the claims that the young man made. They deal with Mr Wilson’s reaction and denials and they note that whatever the truth of the allegations, given it did seem to be common ground that Mr Wilson had befriended this young man, the inappropriateness of doing so given his past criminal convictions.
[9] The ‘report’ is an undated “Addendum Psychological Report to the New Zealand Parole Board” from Department-employed registered psychologist, Kelly Fisher. She identifies the report responds to the Board’s queries if Mr Wilson’s proposed release plan would likely mitigate his risk of reoffending and if he had completed adequate rehabilitation, again to mitigate his risk of reoffending. Her assessment of Mr Wilson was drawn from information obtained from him and others over the course of March and April 2022.
[10]Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report state:
Custodial staff told the writer that early in February they had been approached by a young male in the unit who said Mr Wilson has been “grooming” him and making unwanted sexual advances towards him. This man is in his early twenties and considered vulnerable by custodial staff for reasons in addition to his age. The young tāne told staff that a routine of sharing drinks had developed between Mr Wilson and himself. On one such occasion Mr Wilson had invited him into his cell and given him a large amount of coffee (staff
10 Re Wilson, above n 2, at [3].
11 At [10].
12 At [10].
13 At [5].
noted he was shaking when he approached them the next morning, which they concluded was the result of having ingested a large amount of caffeine). He said Mr Wilson then asked him for ‘more than a cuddle’.
When asked about this allegation during interview, Mr Wilson said that he had heard the man say that he had hit on him, raped, and put a Māori curse on him. He said the allegations were “bizarre” and untrue. He said that he had made attempts to befriend and mentor the young man during a conversation who was troubled, and shared details of his own sexual orientation with him. Mr Wilson said he is here to move forward and is “all about making changes in life.” When asked why the young man would make up the allegations, he said he likely was affected by the hot temperature and the amount of caffeine he had ingested. Mr Wilson also mentioned that this person routinely required support from staff due to his erratic behaviour. Mr Wilson concluded he was too open with this person and trusted him too easily.
[11] Of the former paragraph, Ms Fisher later explained she had spoken to six people in addition to Mr Wilson to compile her report, including “two custodial officers to gather information concerning Mr Wilson’s behaviour in the Unit” and “a custodial staff member who interviewed Mr Wilson after an allegation of grooming and sexual advances were made against him by a younger and vulnerable [prisoner]”.
[12]Ms Fisher added at the report’s paragraph 12:
The above allegations remain unproven, and the writer understands that no action was taken or is planned by custodial staff. However, while denying sexual wrongdoing, Mr Wilson has acknowledged aspects of his relationship with the young man that appear offence paralleling for him. Specifically, Mr Wilson’s index offending involved him developing a mentor-like relationship with a young teenager and offering him alcohol to drink prior to offending. In interview with the writer, Mr Wilson did not appear to see any similarities between the recent allegations and early, setting stages of his sexual offending. Neither did he recognise that through his relationship with the young man in prison he had put himself in high-risk situations for potential offending. Gift-giving and contact with vulnerable males are not explicitly reflected in Mr Wilson’s safety plan. His safety plan does however highlight forming relationships with young adolescent men as a risky situation. To support him in the future this safety plan could be amended to include a broader range of risks.
[13] Ms Fisher also observed of Mr Wilson’s proposal, to be released to his mother’s address in Gisborne for an extended period of time before moving to live on the family farm:
Mr Wilson’s personal supports reside in Gisborne. File information shows that Mr Wilson’s aunty and uncle have attended a prior whanau hui and have offered their support to him on release. They are aware of the nature of his offending, his risk and the content of his safety plan. Mr Wilson said as well
as being able to live with his mother, she is aware of his safety plan, having attended a more recent whanau hui and would be well-placed to let him know if she saw any signs that he was starting to slip (towards a relapse). However, file information includes a recent comment that Mr Wilson’s mother does not believe her son committed the index offending. Therefore, this person may be complacent with respect to signs of Mr Wilson’s risk, and communication of such to either Mr Wilson or CPS. Additionally, Mr Wilson has historically struggled to hear negative feedback. There is evidence that this difficulty continues and could undermine his responsiveness to even the more attuned and interventionist of personal supports. Furthermore, file information notes (23rd July 2021) that at the last whanau hui which his mother and brother attended, Mr Wilson provided a verbal account of his safety plan. It is not clear how complete an account this was, and the extent to which Mr Wilson’s supports understand Mr Wilson's risks and strategies to mitigate these.
[14] Ultimately, Ms Fisher recommended Mr Wilson be offered “opportunity to engage in individual sessions with a psychologist for the purpose of exploring his recent risky behaviour with a tāne and augmenting his safety plan”, strengthen his release plan and thereafter be moved to reintegration accommodation “in a house that does not have a young or vulnerable tāne in residence”, for “reintegration activities such as guided release and release to work” and the Department’s Psychological Services’ support.
[15] Mr Wilson objected to aspects of these and other paragraphs directly to Ms Fisher, and when they were not addressed satisfactorily to him escalated them to the Department’s Hastings manager of Psychological Services, Niall Morrison, again without satisfaction. He also was “unhappy” about the custodial officer’s reported depiction of his association with the younger man, such that the officer contacted Ms Fisher (after she submitted the report to the Board) to reinforce the allegation was unsubstantiated and its disclosure may have put custodial officers at risk from Mr Wilson.
[16] The Board’s May 2022 decision records Mr Wilson claimed not to have had “fair opportunity to read the report and correct what he said was unfairness in the report alleging that the report had laden him with a ‘sex crime labels’ and other complaints”. The decision recounts Department officers saying, after Mr Wilson read the report, he said to Ms Fisher “I hope you die in a fucking car crash”, and Mr Wilson acknowledging he had mentioned “her having a car crash without alleging he hoped she would die”.
[17] The transcript of the Board’s 35-minute hearing — after submissions from Mr Wilson’s counsel for the first seven minutes, predominantly in discussion with Mr Wilson (but also with his case officer and case manager on difficulties in securing a reintegration address) — confirms those aspects, the ‘label’ being a ‘sexual predator’, as well as the following exchange between the Board chairperson and Mr Wilson:
RY So, in the psychological report, ah, when they talk about your contact with this young man, what’s done there is the psychologist reports on what is recorded by the custodial staff, correct.
IW She states that it was.
RY Yeah, well she’s … yeah. She’s reporting what they’ve said. Then she asks you about the allegation and you say that they’re untrue and tell of the context … then what was the problem?
IW That the way she worded it was she was … she phrased it as though I’m a sexually predator …a sexual…predatory sexual on, on the, on the unit and at this late stage in my sentence that’s not true.
RY With respect that’s not true at all. The above allegations remain unproven, either understands no action was taken. She says, look there were elements in that relationship that she thought were unwise and it’s something for you to learn from.
IW Yes, Sir and you’re quite right. RY That’s all …
IW I did learn…that’s right.
RY Well, I can’t understand why you were so strongly angry about it. She had an obligation [indistinct] that the allegation was made, she had an obligation to give you a chance to reply, which you did and then she notes the allegations were unproved, she doesn’t therefore base any of her conclusions on any suggestion of sexuality but says look, okay you have to be careful about relationships with young men. Being perfectly reasonable to me. I, I don’t understand what’s wrong with it. So can you help me.
IW I was fearful and I felt that I should defend myself. I…
RY Yeah. But you understand her obligation is to tell us what is alleged, her obligation was to talk to you which she did, tell you what is alleged, you gave your explanation, she acknowledged they were unproven. She said look there’s an aspect of it that, which was the contact that you’ve got to watch, seemed a very balanced sensible report in that aspect.
IW Yes, Sir Ron.
RY I just…I don’t see the problem for myself, but … then the second point was she says file information includes a recent comment that Mr Wilson’s mother does not believe her son committed the indecent…is that the other area you object?
IW Yes.
RY So as far as you know does she accept that you sexually offended?
IW Yes.
RY Right. So why don’t we ask her – is that true Mrs Wilson, you agree that all of the charges your son was convicted of are true?
CW Um, sorry…yes but I don’t believe it, I’m sorry.
RY Okay. So, there you go Mr Wilson. The psychologist was completely correct.
IW Yes.
Discussion
—judicial review of the Department’s exercise of powers
[18] For Mr Wilson, Graeme Minchin subjects Ms Fisher’s report to close scrutiny. He argues, in the context of the report’s contended recommendation against the grant of parole, it is:
(a)procedurally irregular in failing fairly to account for the “material facts” of Mr Wilson’s association with the younger prisoner, and in failing to update the Board with the custodial officer’s concerns; and
(b)unreasonable for linking Mr Wilson’s association with the younger prisoner with his index offending, using the association as a basis to ‘punish’ Mr Wilson by making his rehabilitation “more difficult”, characterising Mr Wilson’s pursuit of ‘legal avenues’ as intimidatory and refusing to set out Mr Wilson’s responses in a cover letter to the report.
Mr Minchin also argues the Department opposed Mr Wilson’s parole, in part, on the contended irrelevance of his use of the corrections complaints system; alternatively, unlawfully, given his entitlement to use the system “without fear of adverse consequences”.14
[19] All that misses the point, in terms of Mr Wilson’s eligibility to be released from detention on parole, the Department (including Ms Fisher) exercises no power susceptible to judicial review. In general terms, any exercise of ‘public’ or
14 Corrections Act 2004, s 152(1)(b)
‘governmental’ power — powers with public consequences,15 or relevant to the public interest,16 or irremediably affecting private rights and liabilities17 — is susceptible to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Such reviewable power may better be understood as independent power to regulate the affairs of others.18 But Mr Minchin does not, and cannot, point to any such power at issue here, even at its widest application:19
… to make a decision deciding or prescribing or affecting … the rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, or liabilities of any person; or … the eligibility of any person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence, whether that person is legally entitled to it or not.
[20] Mr Wilson is eligible to be released from detention on parole only subject to the Board’s decision under sections 20–32 of the Parole Act 2002. It is an eligibility that subsists unaffected by anything in the Department’s legitimate administration and operation. Rather, the Department’s operation is guided by principles including:20
… offenders must, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resources available, be given access to activities that may contribute to their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community”.
[21] This Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the Board does not extend to general judicial scrutiny of the Department’s myriad decisions falling short of exercises of reviewable power.21 Mr Wilson’s independent complaints of the Department’s processes are subject in the first instance to investigation by an inspector of corrections.22 The grounds of review alleged against the Department will be dismissed.
15 Wilson v White [2005] 1 NZLR 189 (CA) at [21].
16 Attorney-General v Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand [2016] NZCA 609, [2017] 2 NZLR 470 at [42].
17 Mercury Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1994] 2 NZLR 385 (PC) at 388.
18 While beyond the scope of this judgment, such description would catch the extent to which non- public entities also may be susceptible to judicial review; see for example: Stininato v Auckland Boxing Association Inc [1978] 1 NZLR 1 (CA); Royal Australasian College of Surgeons v Phipps [1999] 3 NZLR 1 (CA); Velich v Body Corporate No 164980 (2005) 6 NZCPR 143 (CA). Although applicants in such cases may have contracted to be subject to powers exercised by such entities, those powers have independent foundation such that they cannot be adjusted exclusively between the applicant and the entity, justifying characterisation as ‘public’.
19 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, s 4 (definition of “statutory power of decision”).
20 Corrections Act 2004, s 6(1)(h).
21 Harriman v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 544 at [33].
22 Corrections Act 2004, s 156.
—judicial review of the Board’s exercise of powers
[22]As against the Board, then, Mr Wilson claims:
(a)it erred in fact in attributing any concern to prison officers;
(b)as contended mandatory relevant considerations, it failed expressly to refer to material proffered by Mr Wilson and did not consider the application of Treaty of Waitangi principles to whānau and whenua;
(c)it irrelevantly referred to Mr Wilson’s complaints about Corrections and his “unkind comment to the psychologist”; alternatively again, unlawfully in terms of the correction complaints system’s use “without fear of adverse consequences”;
(d)it denied Mr Wilson parole on grounds of his ‘inappropriate’ contact with the younger prisoner, in breach of his entitlement to freedoms of association and from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under ss 17 and 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and
(e)in breach of natural justice, the Board adopted “a harsh inquisitorial approach” to the applicant.
[23] Mr Wilson has no entitlement to be released on parole.23 The “sole statutory test” for the Board’s decision is it may direct release:24
… only if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the offender, if released on parole, will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community or any person or class of persons within the term of the sentence, having regard to—
(a) the support and supervision available to the offender following release; and
(b) the public interest in the reintegration of the offender into society as a law- abiding citizen.
Section 7 articulates the principles to guide the Board’s decision, including “decisions must be made on the basis of all the relevant information that is available to the Board at the time”.
23 Parole Act, s 28(1AA).
24 Section 28(2); Miller v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 1832 at [109].
[24] Within those parameters, “[t]he Court can only make an assessment of whether a Board’s decision was lawful, that a decision was open to it”, subject to challenge on usual judicial review principles.25 The Board “in effect evaluates the success of rehabilitative efforts measured against the statutory release test; it does not itself provide or control those efforts”.26 Judicial review of Board decisions whether or not to release an offender on parole necessarily is of limited compass.27
[25] Here, the Board’s decisions were: first, to affirm its August 2021 decision Mr Wilson “must undertake reintegrative testing”;28 and second, not to support Mr Wilson’s proposal to be released to Gisborne.29 Mr Wilson’s disputed contact with the younger prisoner expressly “only confirmed” the continuing need for reintegrative testing.30 Release to Gisborne, whether to family or the Salvation Army as proposed by Mr Wilson, lacked “the kind of support required”.31 Those firmly are decisions well open to the Board; the very factors for which the Board is required to have regard.32
[26] Neither is a decision undermined by any of the complaints raised by Mr Wilson against the Board. The Board’s reference to Mr Wilson’s contact with the younger prisoner observably is a summary of that aspect of Ms Fisher’s report, rather than elevation of any aspect of it to determinative fact. The Board chairperson discussed with Mr Wilson “there were elements in that relationship that [the psychologist] thought were unwise” from which Mr Wilson should learn. The Board clearly considered information put forward by Mr Wilson, as it referred to his proposals for release. It is noteworthy Mr Wilson’s independently-commissioned psychological report endorsed Ms Fisher’s recommendation of phased reintegration or reintegration testing. No relevant material was identified to me as having been overlooked. If tikanga had bearing, no foundational materials were identified to me as being before the Board. In either case such identification was necessary for my assessment if the
25 Ericson v New Zealand Parole Board HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-1912, 2 March 2011 at [13], relied on in Green v New Zealand Parole Board [2022] NZHC 693 at [24].
26 Miller v Attorney-General, above n 24, at [111].
27 Miller v Attorney-General, above n 24, at [112], citing Wong v New Zealand Parole Board [2016] NZHC 1401 and Polyblank v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHC 34225 at [24]–[25]; Milner v New Zealand Parole Board [2022] NZHC 1631 at [8].
28 Re Wilson, above n 2, at [10].
29 At [12].
30 At [10].
31 At [12].
32 Parole Act, s 28(2)
Board’s decision was reasonably available to it on the basis of the evidence before it.33 The Board expressly referred to Mr Wilson’s exchange with the psychologist “because it … illustrates to us the serious need for Mr Wilson to have reintegrative testing”.34 The Board was bound to have regard for all relevant information available to it, as was the report of the exchange.
[27] Thus the Board plainly did not refuse Mr Wilson release from detention on parole in breach of his statutory freedoms of association and from discrimination. His assertion of those freedoms is immaterial to the Board’s decisions. And the Board chairperson’s exchange with Mr Wilson — described by Mr Wilson’s then-counsel, Philip Jensen, with more than 30 years’ experience before the Board, as “appalling”, “a brutal piece of cross examination, full of aggression and attack”, humiliating Mr Wilson who “slowly curled himself up, whilst blanching as though he were being hit” and “just agreed with everything that was being thrown at him. He physically wilted” — is not linked to anything contended unlawful, unfair or unreasonable in the Board’s decisions. Rather the Board maintained its longstanding wish for Mr Wilson’s reintegration testing. Its hearing was to “be run in the manner of an inquiry, and in an atmosphere that encourages persons appearing before the Board to speak for themselves, and as freely and frankly as possible”, at which Mr Wilson had leave to be and was represented by counsel. Natural justice in that context is not offended by the exchange; it cannot be said overall Mr Wilson was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.35
[28] Although only indirectly raised in the pleaded claim, Mr Minchin also challenged the Board’s decision in relation to Mr Wilson’s proposed release to Gisborne. That appeared to have its source in the Board’s August 2021 decision, in which the Board had “noted the concern [it] had about victim contact in Gisborne”.36 The Board said:37
The other aspect relating to the psychological report we mention is in the context of the proposed release to Gisborne. The psychologist mentioned that
33 Chief Executive Land Information New Zealand v Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust [2013] NZCA 33, [2013] NZAR 539 at [117].
34 Re Wilson, above n 2, at [9].
35 Filmer v Jamieson Castles (a firm) [2006] NZAR 444 (CA) at [30].
36 Re Wilson, above n 2, at [3].
37 At [6] and [11]–[12].
the concern was that Mr Wilson might be released to Gisborne to his mother's address and that his mother did not believe that he had committed the sexual offending involved in the index offence. Accordingly, she would not be especially protective of Mr Wilson and could not therefore be relied upon by Corrections to identify high-risk situations and contact Corrections when it was needed.
…
The final matter relates to accommodation in the future. The proposal from Mr Wilson was to be released to Gisborne to his family, initially to his mother and then later to work on the family farm some distance out of Gisborne.
Given the comments his mother has made and given the victim concerns and her contact with Gisborne we do not support a release to Gisborne. After the proposed time with his mother the proposal puts him in a very isolated situation ultimately on a farm some distance from Gisborne. It would not provide the kind of support that we think is necessary for him. We also doubt whether Salvation Army accommodation suggested as an alternative would provide the kind of support required. We consider the way forward for Mr Wilson is to look beyond Gisborne to supported accommodation for his release.
[29] Mr Minchin’s criticism is the Board’s reliance on the mother’s delayed and ambiguous response to the Board chairperson’s abrupt question is to overlook her letter of support to the Board. The letter in large part articulates the mother’s wish for her son to support her in her advancing age and ill health. But the Board is required to assess “the support and supervision available to the offender following release”,38 and it did so more broadly than by reference to the mother’s response alone. Again, I am pointed to nothing in the letter as may have led the Board to a different decision.
[30]The grounds of review alleged against the Board also will be dismissed.
Result
[31]Mr Wilson’s application for review is dismissed.
Costs
[32] I reserve costs, if they are at issue, for determination on short memoranda each of no more than five pages — annexing a single-page table setting out any contended allowable steps, time allocation and daily recovery rate — to be filed and served by
38 Parole Act, s 28(2)(a).
the Department within ten working days of the date of this judgment, with any response or reply to be filed within five working day intervals after service.
—Jagose J
2
9
1