The Federal Court has recently delivered a significant decision in relation to parole and early release on licence for Commonwealth offenders.

In Dalton v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 625, the applicant, a federal offender serving a sentence of imprisonment, sought judicial review in relation to (i) his application for early release on licence under s 19AP of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and (ii) a decision to refuse to release him on parole pursuant to s 19AL. Importantly, and like in all judicial review applications concerning parole for Commonwealth offenders, the Court was concerned only with the legality of the decision and was not required to consider its merits.

In relation to the applicant’s release for licence, Horan J considered that the criterion of ‘exceptional circumstances’ is capable of application to a wide variety of situations and that s 19AP confers on the Attorney-General (AG) a broad discretionary power. However, while the AG must take such time as is necessary to afford procedural fairness and to make a considered decision within the bounds of legal reasonableness, a decision on an application for a licence under s 19AP ought not to be unduly delayed or deferred so as to give rise to a risk that the purpose of the power might be undermined). Given the application was made in 2020 and no decision had been made, Horan J considered that a reasonable time for making a decision had elapsed. His Honour concluded that the application was not ‘overtaken’ by the AG’s consideration of the applicant’s release on parole in 2023 or 2024. Ultimately however, Horan J considered that there would be no utility in granting mandamus (or analogous relief) to require the AG to make a decision on the extant application for a licence, because the circumstances on which the applicant relied were out of date, and the applicant’s focus more recently was on matters relevant to his release on parole.

In relation to parole, Horan J considered that none of the applicant’s grounds of review were made out. His Honour concluded that s 19AL did not confer on the applicant an entitlement to reconsideration of parole at any earlier date than within 12 months of a decision to not release a person on parole. Additionally, his Honour agreed with the AG’s submission that the question whether and when an offender should be released on parole is not centrally concerned with the effect of any disruptions or deprivations that may have been experienced by the offender while serving his or her sentence, but that the purposes of parole are directed to the protection of the community and the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community upon his or her release from prison.

The AG was represented by Trent Glover SC, who has appeared in over 25 judicial review applications of decisions to refuse to release Commonwealth offenders on parole.