St Alder v State Parole Authority and Anor [2007] NSWSC 345

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : St Alder v State Parole Authority and Anor [2007] NSWSC 345

HEARING DATE(S) : 02/04/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 16 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Howie J at 1

DECISION : The summons is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : Prisons - revocation of parole - review by Parole Authority - whether error in law in not rescinding revocation - whether material before Authority false, misleading or irrelevant.

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 - ss 128, 137A(1), 155, 170(4), 174, 175(1)(a)

CASES CITED : Rozynski v Parole Board of New South Wales [2003] NSWCCA 21

PARTIES : Kevin Leslie St Alder v State Parole Authority and Anor

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30006/2007

COUNSEL : D. Legg - Plaintiff B.K. Baker - 2nd Defendant (Attorney General)

SOLICITORS : Burridge & Legg - Plaintiff I.V. Knight - 2nd Defendant (Attorney General)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

HOWIE J

MONDAY 16 APRIL 2007

30006/2007 KEVIN LESLIE ST ALDER v STATE PAROLE AUTHORITY AND ANOR

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: These are proceedings for orders in the nature of prerogative relief sought by the plaintiff against the State Parole Authority (the Authority). Alternatively there is also an application under s 155 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (the Act) for an order directing the Authority to determine the application of the plaintiff for parole without relying on information which was false, misleading or irrelevant. 2 Mr Legg appeared for the plaintiff and Ms Baker of the Crown Solicitor's Office appeared for the Attorney General as contradictor. There was no appearance on behalf of the Authority that submitted to the orders of the Court. 3 On 26 September 2005 Justice Blanch in the District Court sentenced the plaintiff on a charge of malicious damage to a dwelling house by fire to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years. The sentence dated from 26 October 2003 so that the plaintiff was eligible for parole on 26 October 2005. The offence arose out of a breakdown in the relationship of the plaintiff with his former partner, Ms Wilson. There are four children of that relationship. The house, which was subject of the offence for which the plaintiff was imprisoned, was owned by Ms Wilson's aunt. 4 In sentencing the plaintiff Justice Blanch referred to evidence that the plaintiff had previously given before him on a bail application and stated "it was quite clear at that stage that he was very strongly emotionally attached to his children and was having difficulty making objective judgments about his conduct". Justice Blanch also stated: