Trinh v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 1352

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Trinh v NSW State Parole Authority [2006] NSWSC 1352

HEARING DATE(S) : 20/11/2006 JUDGMENT OF : Howie J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 11/20/2006

DECISION : Application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - Parole administration - decision to revoke parole - whether based upon material that was false or misleading - failure of Authority to give adequate reasons - limited extent of Court's jurisdiction to grant relief.

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 199 - s 176

CASES CITED : Lee v The State Parole Authority of New South Wales (2006) NSWSC 1225

PARTIES : Dinh Anh Khoa Trinh v NSW State Parole Authority

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC PB0018/2006

COUNSEL : J. Overall - Applicant C. Morris - Defendant

SOLICITORS : Ren Zhou Lawyers - Applicant Crown Solicitor's Office - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2006

PB0018/2006 DINH ANH KHOA TRINH v NSW STATE PAROLE AUTHORITY

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to this Court pursuant to s 176 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (the Act) following a revocation order made by the Parole Authority on 2 June 2006 revoking the applicant's release on parole effective as at 24 April 2006. 2 The short facts are that the applicant was released to parole on an order made in the Local Court. The parole order was subject to a number of prescribed conditions as to the applicant being of good behaviour and supervision conditions, including one to obey all reasonable directions of the officer of the Parole Service and another to report to the officer at such times and places as the officer may direct. 3 The applicant had been sentenced in the Local Court to concurrent terms of imprisonment, as a result of which he had a period of some fifteen months to serve on parole. The applicant was released to parole on 1 February 2006. 4 There are three reports that are before me and were before the Authority when dealing with the decision that brings the matter before this Court. The first was a report of 15 March 2006 that was placed before the Parole Authority on 16 March of that year. That report was prepared by Ms Chalmers, a probation and parole officer and dated 15 March 2006. That report recommended that a warning should be given to the applicant by the Authority that he should comply fully with the conditions of his parole order. As a result, the Authority gave such a warning to the applicant. 5 There was a further report dated 21 May 2006, again made by the probation and parole officer, Ms Chalmers. That report recommended that his parole order be revoked. 6 There was a further report dated 1 June 2006, again by Ms Chalmers and again recommending revocation of parole. The recommendation resulted in the revocation of his parole on 2 June. 7 The applicant was before the Authority on 3 August 2006 represented by Mr Overall who appears for the applicant before this Court. During the course of those proceedings the applicant gave evidence. Ultimately, after shortly considering what it should so, the Authority stated that it was unpersuaded that it should alter the order revoking his parole. In giving the reasons for the decision, the Chairman said on behalf of the Authority;