› Cogent reasons distinguished from error and de novo hearing
Quick Take
1The 'cogent reasons' standard in s 77E(5) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) establishes a separate standard of review that is higher than simple substitution of views but does not require demonstration of House v The King error; reasons must be compelling, convincing or powerful to depart from the Parole Board's decision, and a mere difference in weight attached to relevant considerations is insufficient.
2The obligations to give due weight and not depart except for cogent reasons under s 77E(5) are not jurisdictional facts capable of objective determination by a reviewing court, but rather evaluative matters for the Commissioner — though the Commissioner's determination remains subject to judicial review for jurisdictional error on orthodox grounds.
3For a parole authority to refuse parole solely on the basis of the gravity of offending, without identifying how gravity operates as a current risk factor informed by other s 67(4) considerations, necessarily transgresses the s 67(4)(c) prohibition against substituting its view of gravity for that of the sentencing court, as it effectively treats the non-parole period as inadequate.
