Key Takeaways

An intensive correction order is the second most serious type of punishment a court can sentence an offender for committing a criminal offence in Australia. It’s also called an “ICO” for short and is actually an imprisonment penalty that is served, not in jail, but within the community with supervision and community programs. It can be applied by a court for very serious offenses committed where the court would otherwise impose a full time prison sentence.

What is an Intensive Correction Order in Australia?

ICO meaning? An intensive correction order in NSW is called an “ICO” for short and is a way of serving an imprisonment sentence in the community, instead of being sent to full-time jail. Because it’s a type of jail sentence served outside in the community, it’s also considered an alternative to full-time jail for very serious offenders.

An ICO can apply to offenders if the court believes that a community-based sentence is more likely to reduce the risk of him/her reoffending than sending that person to full-time jail. The main concern is community safety.

In order from least serious to most serious, the following are the types of penalties a sentencing court can impose on an offender:
1) Section 10 Dismissal without conviction (without good behavior bond)
2) Conditional Release Order without conviction (with good behavior bond)
3) Section 10A with conviction (without good behavior bond)
4) Conditional Release Order with conviction (with good behavior bond)
5) Community Correction Order with conviction
6) Intensive Correction Order with conviction
7) Full-time Imprisonment

The Sentencing Starting Point

When the sentencing court is going to sentence an offender for a criminal offence, the Judge will in his/her mind go through the following considerations in this order:
1. The maximum penalty the offence carries under law
2. Whether a standard non parole period applies to the offence?
3. Whether after considering all possible alternatives of sentencing, that no punishment other than imprisonment is appropriate? And considerations to the purposes of punishment.
4. The length of the imprisonment sentence
5. The final step is to consider whether the imprisonment sentence should be served in full time jail or in the community under an ICO.

When finally considering the mode of the imprisonment sentence, there are two available options, namely full time custody or Intensive Correction Order.

If an ICO is imposed, instead of full-time jail, then a non-parole period will not be set for the imprisonment sentence. The non-parole period is the period of jail time behind bars a person must do before being eligible for release back into the community on parole.

An ICO cannot be imposed on an offender if the offender is under the age of 18-years.

An ICO can also be imposed for short term imprisonments sentences of 6 months or less.

Is the Judge Required to Consider an ICO?

The sentencing court may be required to consider imposing an ICO if a reasonable or cogent argument is made to the court for it.

The case study of Mourtada v R (2021) is a good illustration of this. The applicant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment for two offences involving the illegal importation of tobacco products. The applicant was one of multiple offenders who were sentenced in the same proceedings for related offences. His counsel at the sentence hearing had submitted that an ICO was appropriate in the circumstances. The sentencing judge did not engage with that submission in his remarks in respect of the applicant. At the conclusion of the sentence proceedings, counsel for the applicant asked:

“Has your Honour considered the matters in section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in terms of the submission made for an ICO, and protection of the community?”

The sentencing judge replied that he had, and elaborated:

“… I just thought the objective seriousness of the matters were such that they needed to be served by way of full-time imprisonment for the purposes of general and specific deterrence.” (Mourtada at [19])

The Court granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal because the exchange following the delivery of sentence was a clear indication that the sentencing judge had considered whether an ICO should be imposed, despite his Honour not having referred to s 66 in his remarks.

What Happens if the Court Fails to Consider an ICO When Required to?

There is no rule that a sentencing court must consider making an ICO in all cases where imprisonment ends up being considered the most appropriate sentence to impose. However, if the sentencing court fails to consider an ICO in a situation there is a requirement to consider it, the court will be considered to have fell into error. This can then be successfully appealed in a higher court.

A case study example is Khalil v R [2022] NSWCCA. Here the sentencing Judge’s remarks failed to disclose the reasoning for rejecting the submission that was advanced in favour of an ICO. Those remarks didn’t either expressly or inferentially disclose the reasoning for rejecting an ICO, which amounted to error.

Checklist to Satisfy Before an ICO can be Imposed

What are the steps and hurdles that must be considered and satisfied before an ICO punishment can lawfully be imposed by a sentencing Judge in court? The following are a checklist and guide to follow generally, namely, sections 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73A and 73B, 17D and 4B Sentencing Act.

Section 66 Community Safety

Section 66 Sentencing Act requires the court to take community safety as paramount consideration when considering an ICO, by assessing whether making an ICO or full time detention is more likely to address the risk of reoffending.

This assessment includes identifying any contributing factors to the offending behaviour, that can be more effectively addressed by the imposition of community supervision and programs under an ICO than full time custody, for purposes of section 66.

Section 66 was amended by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 (NSW), which commenced on 24 September 2018.

The purpose of the amendment was explained by the Attorney General of NSW, in the second reading speech on 11 October 2017, which:

• acknowledged that ICO’s are designed to reduce the risk of re-offending through community supervision and programs, and
• acknowledged that evidence shows that community supervision and programs are more effective at reducing the risk of reoffending than full time detention for terms of imprisonment of under 2 years (Also reflected in Pullen).

When considering an ICO, the court must also consider the purposes of sentencing and any relevant common law sentencing principles, and any other matters that the court thinks relevant.

In Wany, the court also referred to the fact that parliament had expressed its recognition that responsibility and accountability are as much able to be reflected by the successful completion of a period of supervision within the community, possibly with additional conditions, as by the service of a short term imprisonment (Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 at [10]).

Section 67 Offences that Preclude an ICO

This provision precludes a court from imposing an ICO if any of the offences outlined in the section applies, including murder/manslaughter, prescribed sexual offences, an offence involving the discharge of a firearm, terrorism offences or a contravention of the serious crime prevention order.

A ‘prescribed sexual offence’ here is defined in s67(2) and includes an offence under Division 10 or 10A of Part 3 Crimes Act 1900, being an offence involving a victim aged under 16, or an offence where the victim is of any age where the elements of the offence include sexual intercourse as defined by s61H Crimes Act 1900.

A prescribed sexual offence also includes certain offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code where the victim was under the age of 16 years.

These offences include using a carriage service for child abuse material, and production or possession of child abuse material under both state and federal laws.

Section 68 Limits the Duration of the Imprisonment Sentencing Term (H3)

Section 68 precludes the court from making an ICO if:
• for a single offence, the duration of the imprisonment term exceeds 2 years, or
• for an aggregate imprisonment sentence, the duration of the aggregate term exceeds 3 years.

Section 69 Assessment Reports

This provision requires a court to have regard to the contents of an assessment report, and evidence from the community corrections officer and any other information before the court that the court considers necessary for purposes of deciding whether to make an ICO.

Significantly, the court is not bound by the assessment report, except for where section 73A(3) Sentencing Act applies.

Section 73A(3) precludes a court from imposing a home detention or community service work condition on an ICO unless an assessment report states that the offender is suitable to be subject of such a condition.

For ICO’s, section 17D requires the court to obtain an assessment report before it can make an ICO unless:
• if the court is satisfied there’s sufficient information to justify the making of an ICO without an assessment report (except if required to obtain an assessment report for purposes of home detention or community service work condition to an ICO).

Sections 17D(2) and (4) requires a court to obtain an assessment report relating to a home detention or community service work condition before it can impose any such condition to an ICO. Section 73A(3) then restricts it further (as outlined earlier).

Can an ICO be Imposed if the Offender Lives in Another State or Territory? (H3)

Short answer is no. The court is only permitted to impose an ICO in respect of an offender who resides or intends to reside in another State or Territory if that State or Territory is declared by the regulations to be an approved jurisdiction, according to section 69(3) Sentencing Act.

Currently no state or territory has been declared by the regulations to be an approved jurisdiction for purposes of 69. This has also been acknowledged under note 3 of Part 3 Sentencing Regulation.

Factors that an Assessment Report Must Address

Section 12A(1) Sentencing Regulation provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that an assessment report must address, including the following:

• the offender’s risk of re-offending
• factors relating to the offender’s offending behaviour
• factors that may impact on the offender’s ability to address his/her offending behaviour
• how the matters referred to above would be addressed by supervision and then availability of resources to do so
• any conditions that would facilitate the effective supervision of the offender in the community
• the offender’s suitability for community service work
• a summary of the offender’s response to any previous period of management in the community in respect of any relevant order,
• any additional matters that the court wishes to have specifically addressed.

Significantly, an assessment report doesn’t need to address a matter already referred to if the matter is not relevant to the circumstances relating to the offender or the court doesn’t require the matter to be addressed (section 12A(3) Sentencing Regulation).

Factors an Assessment Report for Home Detention is Required to Address (H3)

Section 12B(1) Sentencing Regulation provides a non-exhaustive list of matters that an assessment report for a home detention condition is required to address, including the following:

• the offender’s suitability for home detention,
• any risks associated with imposing home detention, including any risks to the offender or any other persons, including children, and any strategies that could manage the risks,
• any other matters relevant to administrating an Intensive Correction Order with a home detention condition

Importantly an assessment report is not to be finalised until reasonable efforts have been made by a community corrections officer in consultation with the offender, to find suitable accommodation if it appears that the offender doesn’t have accommodation suitable for a home detention condition (section 12B Sentencing Regulation).

Section 70 and 71: Can Pre-custody Imprisonment Be Taken Into Account to Reduce the Term of an ICO?

The ICO term is the same as the term of imprisonment in respect of which the order is made (section 70 Sentencing Act).

Section 71(1) Sentencing Act requires the ICO to commence on the date on which it’s made.

Section 71(2) Sentencing Act says that (1) doesn’t apply to an ICO order made in relation to an imprisonment sentence to be served consecutively (or partly concurrently and partly consecutively) with some other imprisonment sentence the subject of an ICO.

This would cause injustice to offenders who have served time in custody before sentencing (or re sentencing on appeal) occurs, who would otherwise have time served taken into account in the way permitted by sections 24(a) and 47(3) Sentencing Act. In those circumstances, an ICO would be precluded upon a strict interpretation of 71.

Simpson AJA in Mandranis from [55] onwards elaborates more on this issue.

Particularly at [61] where Her Honour addresses this issue and said that an offender who’s served time in custody prior to sentencing is entitled to have that time recognised without sacrificing other options that might be available. Sections 70 and 71 which prohibit this, should not prohibit this because it is unjust. The way to overcome this, is for the pre-sentence custody period to be adjusted by deducting it to the term of the sentence, so that the ICO commences on the day it’s made (complying with s71 and s70). The sentence actually recorded and imposed would be less (by the length of the pre-sentence custody) than the sentence found to be appropriate to meet the purposes of sentencing.

Conditions Imposed on an ICO Sentence: Sections 72, 73, 73A and 73B (H3)

Under section 72 Sentencing Act, an ICO is subject to standard conditions (s73), additional conditions (73A), any further conditions imposed by the sentencing court under s73B, and any conditions imposed by the Parole Authority under section 81A or 164 Administration of Sentences Act.

After a sentencing court makes an ICO with conditions in respect of the offender, the ICO conditions are afterwards imposed, varied or revoked by the Parole Authority rather than the sentencing court.

Section 73 requires the sentencing court when imposing an ICO, to impose the standard conditions, namely, conditions that the offender must not commit any offence and that the offender must submit to supervision by a community corrections officer.

Standard condition obligations of supervision concerning an ICO are outlined in clause 187 Administration of Sentences Regulation, under the authority of section 82 of the Administration of Sentences Act.

Section 73A Sentencing Act requires the sentencing court to impose at least 1 of the additional conditions on an ICO (unless there are exceptional circumstances not to).

Additional conditions of an ICO include:
• home detention
• electronic monitoring
• curfew
• community service work requiring the performance of community service work for a specified number of hours (not exceeding 750 hours or the number of hours prescribed by the regulations in respect of the class of offences to which the relevant offence belongs, whichever is the lesser)
• rehabilitation or treatment condition requiring the offender to participate in a rehabilitation program or to receive treatment
• an abstention condition requiring abstention from alcohol and/or drugs
• non association condition prohibiting association with particular persons
• place restriction condition prohibiting the frequenting of or visits to a particular place or area

The sentencing court can limit the period during which an additional condition imposed by it on an ICO is in force (section 73A(4) Sentencing Act).

The period during which a community service work condition requiring the performance of a specified number of hours is in force must not be less than the period prescribed by the regulations in respect of the specified number of hours of community service work (section 73A(5) Sentencing Act).

Clause 14 Sentencing Regulation prescribes the minimum and maximum periods that a community service work condition can be in force for in an additional condition of an ICO.

The minimum periods are:
• 6 months: if the number of hours of community service work required to be performed does not exceeds 100 hours,
• 12 months: if the number of hours of community service work required to be performed exceeds 100 hours but does not exceed 300 hours,
• 18 months: if the number of hours of community service work required to be performed exceeds 300 hours but does not exceed 500 hours,
• 2 years: if the number of hours of community service work required to be performed exceeds 500 hours

The maximum hours are:
• 100 hours: for offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law does not exceed 6 months,
• 200 hours: for offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law exceeds 6 months but does not exceed 1 year,
• 750 hours: for offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law exceeds 1 year.

Section 73B Sentencing Act allows the sentencing court to impose further conditions on an ICO, so long as they are not inconsistent with any of the standard conditions or any of the additional conditions.

Clause 202 Administration of Sentences Regulation prohibits an offender from being directed to perform more than 8 hours of community service work in any one day, unless by agreement between offender and a community corrections officer or supervisor.

Section 4B Domestic Violence Offences

Section 4B Sentencing Act prohibits the sentencing court from imposing an ICO in respect of an imprisonment sentence for a domestic violence offence. This includes an aggregate imprisonment sentence for 2 or more offences, any one or more of which is a domestic violence offence.

The sentencing court can impose an ICO in those circumstances if satisfied that the victim, and any person with whom the offender is likely to reside, will be adequately protected (whether by ICO conditions or for some other reason).

In addition, under this provision, the sentencing court is also prohibited from imposing a home detention condition if the court reasonably believes that the offender will reside with the victim of the domestic violence offence.

Important to also note is section 4A Sentencing Act which requires a sentencing court to impose either full time detention or a supervised order in respect to a person guilty of a domestic violence offence.

A supervised order here includes an ICO, CCO or CRO, that is subject to a supervision condition.

In short, a non-conviction sentence can still be imposed by the sentencing court in domestic violence offences.

ICOs and Breaches of ICOs for Federal Offences

An ICO under the NSW Sentencing Act is an available sentencing option for federal or commonwealth offences in NSW. The Parole Authority also have the power to administer an ICO, including imposing, varying or revoking ICO conditions for federal offences.

Section 20AC Commonwealth Crimes Act requires the sentencing court to deal with ICO breaches. Only the sentencing court can therefore revoke an ICO order for federal offences. However, the same is not the case for NSW offences for breaches of ICO’s. For NSW State offences, breaches are dealt with not by the sentencing court, but they are dealt with by the Parole Authority and/or Community Corrections Officer.

Where an ICO order has been made for a federal offence and there’s information before a Magistrate alleging that the offender has without reasonable cause or excuse failed to comply with the ICO, the Magistrate can (s20AC(2)):
• issue a summons directing the offender to appear before the sentencing court, or
• issue a warrant for the offender’s apprehension if information is laid on oath and the Magistrate is of the opinion the summons might not be effective.

If the offender after being served with a summons then fails to attend court or has been admitted to bail but then fails to attend court, the court can also issue a warrant for his/her apprehension, but only if there is proof of the service of the summons (or the admission of the offender on bail) (s20AC(3)).

Where the offender appears before the sentencing court, and the court is satisfied that he/she has, without reasonable cause or excuse, failed to comply with the ICO order, the Court can (s20AC(6)):
• without prejudice to the continuance of the ICO order, impose an pecuniary penalty not exceeding 10 penalty units, and/or
• revoke the ICO order, and re-sentence the offender for the original federal offence, or
• take no action.

The offender has the right to appeal that sentence.

What Can a Community Corrections Officer Do if There’s an ICO Breach for NSW State Offences?

The community corrections officer or Commissioner can do any of the following if satisfied that an offender has breached his/her ICO obligations:
• record the breach and take no action
• give an informal warning
• give a formal warning that further breaches will result in referral to the Parole Authority
• give a reasonable direction to the offender relating to the kind of behaviour by the offender that caused the breach,
• impose a curfew of up to 12 hours in a 24 hour period
• alternatively or additionally, refer the breach to the Parole Authority because of the serious nature of it, with a recommendation as to the action the Parole Authority may take.

In determining which action to take, or whether to take action at all, the community corrections officer may have regard to any action previously taken in respect of the breach or any earlier breaches of the order.

What Can the Parole Authority Do if There’s an ICO Breach for NSW State Offences?

The Parole Authority may conduct an enquiry if it has reason to suspect that there’s a failure to comply with the ICO obligations, whether or not the order has expired (section 162 Administration of Sentences Act).

The offender may make submissions to the Parole Authority in relation to the matters under enquiry.

The Parole Authority has the power to make an ICO interim suspension order, and issue an arrest warrant if on the Commissioner’s application, the Parole Authority is satisfied that the Commissioner has reasonable grounds for believing that:
• the offender’s failed to comply with his/her ICO obligations, or
• there’s a serious and immediate risk that the offender will leave NSW in breach of the ICO conditions, or
• there’s a serious and immediate risk that the offender will harm another person, or
• there’s a serious and immediate risk that the offender will commit an offence, and
• due to the urgency of the circumstances, there’s insufficient time for a Parole Authority meeting to deal with the matter.

Unless sooner revoked, such a suspension order ceases to have effect at the end of 28 days after it’s made, or if the offender’s not in custody when it’s made, at the end of 28 days after he/she is taken into custody.

The Parole Authority can take any of the following action if satisfied that an offender’s breached his/her ICO obligations:
• record the breach and take no action,
• give a formal warning,
• Impose ICO conditions, to the extent of what the sentencing court could have imposed,
• vary or revoke ICO conditions, except for standard conditions, and (relevant to varying) to the extent of what the sentencing court could have,
• revoke the ICO order (revocation order).

The Parole Authority here can impose an ICO condition of:
• 30 days home detention,
• To submit to the use of an electronic monitoring device,
• Ancillary conditions relating to any imposed condition.

If any of the additional conditions on an ICO are revoked by the Parole Authority, the revoked additional condition must be replaced with another additional condition, unless there’s already another additional condition in force.

A home detention or community service work condition on an ICO cannot be imposed unless a report has been prepared by a community corrections officer stating that such a condition is appropriate in the circumstances.

Other Powers of the NSW Parole Authority

The Parole Authority can also impose, vary or revoke ICO conditions, on the application of the offender or a community corrections officer.

The Parole Authority cannot vary or revoke a standard condition, and it can only impose a home detention or community service work condition if a community corrections officer report has been prepared and states that such a condition is appropriate.

If an additional condition of an ICO is revoked, the Parole Authority is required to replace it with another additional condition unless there’s already another additional condition in force.

However, a replacement additional condition is not required to be imposed if the Parole Authority is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances.

Section 164AA Administration of Sentences Act gives the Parole Authority the power to, on its own initiative or on recommendation of the Commissioner, revoke an ICO if:
• satisfied the offender’s unable to comply with his/her ICO obligations as a result of a material change in his/her circumstances,
• the offender’s applied for revocation,
• the offender failed to appear before the Parole Authority when called on under s180 Administration of Sentences Act.

Section 180 Administration of Sentences Act can be engaged when the Parole Authority conducts an enquiry, it can:
• call the offender to appear before it and, if he/she fails to appear, issue an arrest warrant, or
• issue an arrest warrant without calling the offender to appear if of the opinion that the offender won’t appear if called upon.

In addition, under these provisions, the Parole Authority can revoke the ICO order, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, if it’s satisfied that health reasons or compassionate grounds exist to justify it.

Other Powers of the Community Corrections Officer

A community corrections officer can:
• suspend an ICO supervision condition for a period or indefinitely,
• suspend an ICO curfew, non-association or place restriction condition for a period(s).

This power must be exercised subject to clause 189I Administration of Sentences Regulation, which requires the community corrections officer to take the following matters into account before exercising the power to suspend an ICO supervision condition:
• risk of re-offending,
• seriousness of the offender’s criminal history,
• likely benefit of the supervision condition continuing to apply and the effect of any other measures that are being, or may be, taken to address the risk of re-offending,
• resources available to supervise.

A community corrections officer must obtain approval by a more senior officer before he/she suspends an ICO supervision condition.

In addition, notice must be provided to the offender of the making or revocation of the suspension order.

The suspension or revocation order takes effect when notice of the order is given to the offender.

Warrants Following Revocation of an ICO

The Parole Authority can issue a warrant to commit the offender to a correctional centre to serve the remainder of the sentence by way of full time detention if the ICO order is revoked (section 181 (1) Administration of Sentences Act).

The warrant can be recalled or suspended by the Parole Authority.

The effect of the warrant gives a police officer the power to arrest and take the offender into custody for the remainder of the sentence.

Expired ICO

The Parole Authority can exercise the functions under Part 7 in relation to an ICO order even after the order has expired. Part 7 functions are basically the sentencing courts powers in imposing and considering an ICO already discussed earlier.

When Does the Revocation Order Take Effect?

An ICO can be revoked by the Parole Authority:
• whether or not the offender’s been called on to appear before it, and
• whether or not it’s held an enquiry

However, the revocation order takes effect on the date on which it’s made or on such earlier date as the Parole Authority thinks fit.

According to section 164A(2) Administration of Sentences Act, the earliest date on which the revocation order can take effect is the date of the first occasion on which it appears to the Parole Authority that the offender failed to comply with his/her ICO obligations.

If an offender is not taken into custody until after the day on which the revocation order takes affect, the term of his/her sentence is extended by the number of days he/she was at large after the order took effect.

Your Options After an ICO is Revoked

There are three main options you have after an ICO ends up getting revoked. These include the review process, the reinstating process, or the Supreme Court application process.

Review of Revoked ICO

Following revocation, the Parole Authority must serve a revocation notice to the offender (section 173(1) Administration of Sentences Act).

The revocation notice must be served as soon as practicable following revocation.

If a section 181 warrant is issued, then the revocation notice must be served as soon as practicable after the warrant’s been executed, and in any case, within 21 days after the offender’s returned to custody.

The revocation notice is required to:
• state a date on which the Parole Authority is to meet to reconsider the revocation (between 14 days and 28 days from being served the revocation notice), and for purpose of reconsidering the date on which the revocation order takes effect, if that date is an earlier date than the date on which the revocation order was made, and
• outline that the offender has, not later than 7 days before the set date, to notify the Secretary of the Parole Authority if he/she intends to make submissions to the Parole Authority in relation to the reconsideration.

According to section 174 Administration of Sentences Act, upon notifying the Parole Authority that the offender intends to make submissions, a hearing will be set on the same set date in relation to:
• reconsidering the ICO revocation, and/or
• reconsidering the date on which the revocation order takes effect, if that date is an earlier date than the date on which the revocation order was made.

The Parole Authority, after reviewing all reports, documents and other information placed before it, must decide whether or not (section 175 Administration of Sentences Act):
• to rescind the revocation, or
• to rescind or vary the date on which the revocation order takes effect.

This review/reconsideration of the revocation avenue is not available if the ICO is revoked within 30 days before the sentence expires (section 175A Administration of Sentences Act).

Reinstating a Revoked ICO

The offender can apply to the Parole Authority (or on the Parole Authority’s own initiative), to reinstate the revoked ICO in respect to the balance of the sentence (section 165(1) Administration of Sentences Act).

Important to note that, Part 5 Sentencing Act does apply to and in respect of the Parole Authority and offender when this avenue is engaged.

The application must state what the offender has done or is doing to ensure he/she won’t fail to comply if the ICO is reinstated.

The Parole Authority may refer the offender to the Commissioner for assessment as to his/her suitability for ICO. The commissioner will then be required to arrange a reinstatement report prepared by a community corrections officer to be furnished to the Parole Authority for its consideration (clause 190(1) Administration of Sentences Regulation).

The Parole Authority is precluded from imposing a community service work or home detention condition to a reinstated ICO unless a reinstatement report states that the offender is suitable to be subjected to such condition(s) (section 190(3) Administration of Sentences Regulation).

Preconditions before an application can be made to reinstate a revoked ICO include:
• the offender must have served at least 1 month of the sentence in custody following revocation, and
• the offender must not be subject to an imprisonment sentence by way of full-time detention that’s yet to commence.

Supreme Court Application

Following an ICO revocation, the offender can apply to the Supreme Court for a direction to be given to the Parole Authority as to whether the information relied upon was false, misleading or irrelevant (section 176(1) Administration of Sentences Act).

This application can only be considered by the Supreme Court if the court is satisfied that the application isn’t an abuse of process and that there appears to be sufficient evidence to support the application.

This does not give the Supreme Court power to consider the merits of the Parole Authority’s decision otherwise than on the grounds under 176(1).

About Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia

Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia are Leading Criminal Defence Lawyers, Delivering Exceptional Results in all Australian Courts.

Related articles

See all articles

Escaping a Prison in New South Wales

Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia 4th July 2022

Is Abortion Legal in Australia?

Poppy Morandin 1st July 2022

New Bail Laws in NSW

Jimmy Singh 30th June 2022

Armed Robbery

Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia 29th June 2022

FEATURED ON:

  What Our Clients Say

I really want to thank Margaret Cunneen, Jimmy Singh and Ahmad Faraj from bottom of my heart for saving my life by handling my case professionally. Because of you I… (read full review) By D.K. from Sydney on 04/07/2022
Thank you CDLA, especially Keiran Khan for your preparation, efforts and hard work and determination into my case. This led to the outcome we hoped for. They were knowledgeable and… (read full review) By A.L. from Sydney on 03/07/2022
Bashir was fantastic, especially during a difficult life moment. we were on a very short timeline, but he acted highly efficiently, precisely, and was very comforting for all my questions.… (read full review) By C.D. from Sydney on 01/07/2022
Bashir was able to get me an outcome far better than originally thought. He was honest with his feedback and mindful that this was my first time dealing with any… (read full review) By R.B. from Sydney on 09/06/2022
We were so satisfied and extremely happy and humbled with the outcome that Ahmad from CDLA made happen in the court today. So delighted and impressed with the immaculate service… (read full review) By K.B. from Sydney on 08/06/2022

Free Conference Booking Form

Follow Us