CHAIRPERSON: The Board will retire and consider those reports."
9 In the course of his remarks, the Chairperson stated:
"The Board considered him for release on parole on 25 August 2005 and they formed an intention to refuse parole on the fact that he was unlikely to adapt to a normal community life; there was a risk of re-offending and there was a need for him to address his offending behaviour, particularly in regard to sexual offending behaviour. Parole was not recommended. There was also an unconfirmed post-release accommodation.
Mr Graham confirms today that Mr Galli still maintains his innocence and accepts the consequences that follow that so far as parole is concerned.
Accordingly, parole is refused for the reasons stated."
10 I am not so sure that this Court does not have jurisdiction, in an appropriate case, to require the Parole Authority to consider adequately and within the law according to the statutory criteria, its obligations in relation to parole. On the face of it, it seems to me that the Parole Authority considered that the fact alone that the offender refused to admit his guilt brought upon his own head the consequence that parole would be refused. If this is so, it strikes me as a complete refusal to undertake the task given the Authority by the Act. It is not for a prisoner to decide whether or not he or she will be paroled providing, of course, the prisoner is prepared to agree to the conditions of parole itself. It is for the Authority to determine that question, having regard to the statutory criteria. I am unable to see how there is anything in the Act which permits the Board to refuse to consider those criteria or to decide that any consideration of those criteria is foreclosed by a refusal by an offender to comply with any particular requirement, except of course the requirement to adhere to the conditions of parole. I am not faced, however, with such an application in this case but what I am going to do should be understood in the light of those observations.
11 I have already pointed to the terms of s 155 of the Act. It seems to me that a refusal by the Authority to consider material matters must have the effect that the facts that it is considered have misled it into making the decision which it has made. Furthermore, having regard to the phrase overall "false, misleading or irrelevant information" I am also of the view that regarding as decisive a fact that cannot be decisive, although it might be marginally relevant, is to make a decision upon the basis of such information.
12 It is, of course, for the Parole Authority to weigh up any particular fact in the context of the whole of the circumstances and, if that were done here, it may be that the application would have been refused. It is evident from the words of the Chairperson that this is precisely what the Authority has not done. In this respect it is necessary to point to two additional matters.
13 The first and perhaps most significant is the question of Ms Vanney, the relevant Probation and Parole officer, in her report of 1 July 2005. That reads:
"Assessment and Recommendation
Mr Galli's conduct record while in custody can only be described as very good. However, of specific concern is his emphatic denial of the offence and refusal to undertake custody post-treatment programmes. Mr Galli's focus at this point in time is primarily to clear his name once he is released from custody. Subsequently, his family have indicated their ongoing support of Mr Galli and his stated endeavours in clearing his name upon release.