Parole Board of NSW v Lo [2005] NSWCCA 108

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Parole Board of NSW v Lo [2005] NSWCCA 108

HEARING DATE(S): 16 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Adams J at 2; Bell J at 10

DECISION: Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Parole - refusal by Parole Board to grant application for direction - decision superceded by subsequent decision - directions irrelevant - psychological report - conclusions disputed by applicant - mere dispute over opinion not basis for direction

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 s155

Parole Board of New South Wales PARTIES: v Moses LO (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 1758/04

W M Abadee (Solicitor) COUNSEL: Applicant self-represented

State Crown Solicitor SOLICITORS: Applicant self-represented

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 1758/04

WOOD CJ AT CL ADAMS J BELL J WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH 2005 PAROLE BOARD OF NEW SOUTH WALES v MOSES LO JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ AT CL: I will ask Adams J to deliver the first judgment.

2 ADAMS J: The applicant, Moses Lo, is serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years and four months with a non-parole period of two years and two months. That will expire on 8 April next. The Parole Board considered whether he should be released on parole last year, but on 12 February 2004 made a determination that he not be released. The determination was made on 5 December 2003 initially. The reasons for refusing parole were given as – "The Board has sufficient reason to believe that if released from custody at this time the offender would not be able to adapt to normal lawful community life; risk of re-offending; need for further alcohol and other drug counselling; need for psychological counselling/report; inappropriate in the public interest; need to address offending behaviour - Violent Offender Therapeutic Program; poor prison performance." The Board considered the way in which the applicant had coped with imprisonment and, amongst other things, his failure to participate in available programs to assist his rehabilitation. It appears that significant weight was placed upon a psychological report dated 10 February 2004 which was, generally speaking, adverse to the applicant. 3 The applicant applied to this Court under s155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for a direction to be given to the Parole Board that the information upon which it relied was, "false and misleading". No grounds were given in his application but, by letter dated 7 May 2004, the applicant informed the solicitor for the Board of the following grounds – "My reasons. The psychologist evaluated me as a 99.8% risk of re-offending.