Summary
A life convict challenged rejection of premature release based on general apprehensions of victim resentment and reoffending. The Court found patent non-application of mind because criminal antecedents, prison conduct and the actual danger posed by release had not been assessed. It set aside the refusal and directed reconsideration under the policy prevailing on the conviction date within two months, without requiring a fresh application. It did not itself order release.
Issues
- Whether the refusal of premature release reflected an individual assessment of relevant circumstances.
- Which policy should govern reconsideration.
Held
- The application had to be considered under the policy prevailing on 17 January 2005, the date of conviction, consistently with the cited premature-release precedents. (¶¶ 6, 9)
- Generic apprehensions of resentment or bitterness could apply to virtually every serious offence. The State omitted the petitioner’s prior criminal history, prison conduct and the material bearing on whether release would endanger society. Individual, considered assessment was required. (¶ 7-8)
- The refusal dated 30 July 2021 was set aside. The existing application was to be reconsidered under the applicable conviction-date policy, taking account of all relevant facts, within two months of the Court’s order. No fresh application was necessary and release itself was not directed. (¶ 9-11)
Result
Premature-release refusal set aside. State directed to reconsider the existing application under the policy in force on 17 January 2005 within two months of this order; no fresh application required.