Alexander v Parole Authority of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 800

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alexander v Parole Authority of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 800 Hearing dates: 5 May 2015 Decision date: 05 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hall J Decision: Application under s 155(1)(b) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES - Parole – Application for direction to Parole Authority under s 155 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) – Applicant had been refused parole by respondent – Applicant had been refused review of respondent's decision – Applicant asserted reliance by State Parole Authority on 'false, misleading or irrelevant information' – Applicant failed to discharge onus of proving that any information before the Parole Authority was either inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete – Application dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: R v Naudi [2003] NSWCCA 160 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Alexander (Applicant) Parole Authority of New South Wales (First Respondent) Attorney General (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: In Person (Applicant) Submitting Appearance (First Respondent) E Sullivan (Second Respondent)

Solicitors: In Person (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondents) File Number(s): 2015/52766

Judgment (Ex tempore)

The Nature of the Proceedings 1. The applicant Christopher Alexander, by proceedings filed on 11 February 2015, seeks that a direction be given to the first respondent, the State Parole Authority, pursuant to s 155(1)(b) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to which I will refer to as "the Act". 2. Pursuant to s 157 of the Act I granted leave to Mr Alexander to appear on his own behalf and make submissions. The Authority, the first respondent, filed a submitting appearance. The Attorney General was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings and the Attorney was joined as second defendant. Ms Sullivan, solicitor advocate of the Crown Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Attorney. 3. The application is opposed by the Attorney General whose contention is that the application should be dismissed. The grounds for that opposition and contention have been the subject of detailed written submissions on behalf of the Attorney General by Ms Sullivan dated 28 April 2015 supplemented by her oral submissions and reply submissions. Mr Alexander has made submissions by videolink and I will refer to the matters raised by him shortly.