Ibrahim v State Parole Authority of NSW [2014] NSWSC 1158

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ibrahim v State Parole Authority of NSW [2014] NSWSC 1158 Hearing dates: 25, 29 July 2014 Decision date: 29 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) Quash the decision of the State Parole Authority dated 3 April 2014. (2) The matter is to be returned to the State Parole Authority to be dealt with according to law. (3) Dismiss the balance of the amended summons. (4) The first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in the agreed amount of $17,997. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - decision of State Parole Authority - plaintiff not provided with summary of document withheld pursuant to s 194 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 at parole hearing - defendants concede that plaintiff was denied procedural fairness at parole hearing Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 194 Cases Cited: Dib v Parole Authority of NSW & Anor [2009] NSWSC 575 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Ibrahim (Plaintiff) State Parole Authority (First Defendant) Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Lange (Plaintiff) R Ranken (Second Defendant) Solicitors: Hanna Legal (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor's Office (First and Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2014/151613

ex tempore Judgment 1At a Parole Authority hearing that culminated on 3 April 2014 in a refusal to grant parole, the plaintiff was not provided with a summary of a document that had been withheld from him, pursuant to s 194 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) as it then was. The second defendant has accepted that that oversight caused the plaintiff to be deprived of procedural fairness at the hearing, in accordance with the accepted and often applied principles explained in Dib v Parole Authority of NSW & Anor [2009] NSWSC 575. 2The result is that both the first and second defendants have consented today to orders being made that will lead to the determination of the State Parole Authority of 3 April 2014 being quashed, and a further hearing occurring promptly. 3As for costs, it is accepted by all parties that it was the oversight of the first defendant that led to the plaintiff being denied procedural fairness. Whilst it is true that the original summons filed by the plaintiff was not founded upon the error subsequently identified, I think there is force in the submission of counsel for the plaintiff that it was the process of litigation initiated by his client that brought the error to light. 4In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the second defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff. Again, that is in accordance with the consent orders with which I was provided today. 5In short, I make the following orders by consent: (1)Quash the decision of the State Parole Authority dated 3 April 2014. (2)The matter is to be returned to the State Parole Authority to be dealt with according to law. (3)Dismiss the balance of the amended summons. (4)The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in the agreed amount of $17,997.