Background
Shahin Ardalan was serving a five-year federal sentence for obtaining about $1.9 million in Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme payments by deception. His non-parole period expired in September 2024, but the Attorney-General had repeatedly refused him parole. This proceeding challenged a further refusal made by the Attorney-General’s delegate on 16 December 2025.
The delegate considered material concerning Ardalan’s risk of domestic violence, including a prior fine for contravening a Police Protection Notice, a Domestic Violence Protection Order, a Temporary Protection Order, police information, corrective-services assessments and a victim submission. Ardalan argued that parole conditions—including supervision, counselling, residence restrictions and no-contact requirements—could reduce any risk, and that the protection orders themselves also mitigated it.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Rangiah dismissed the judicial-review application. The Court held that Ardalan’s lawyers had clearly articulated the argument that parole conditions could ameliorate domestic-violence risk, but the delegate had in fact considered it. The delegate’s reasons expressed concern that Ardalan would not comply with parole conditions or domestic-violence protection orders, and the signed parole-office submission addressed the same issue.
The Court found no clearly articulated submission that the existence of the protection orders themselves reduced the risk. In any event, the delegate had actively considered that proposition by concluding that Ardalan might not comply with those orders. The delegate did not wrongly conflate the breach of the earlier Police Protection Notice with a breach of the later protection order; she treated it as relevant to future compliance risk.
Key Takeaways
- A parole decision-maker must consider substantial and clearly articulated arguments put by an applicant.
- Reasons need not expressly address every submission where the decision and supporting material show active consideration of the issue.
- A prior breach of a Police Protection Notice could rationally inform concern about compliance with future parole and protection-order conditions.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that judicial review of federal parole refusals focuses on whether the decision-maker genuinely considered the case put, rather than whether the Court would have reached a different assessment of risk. It also illustrates that proposed parole conditions do not compel release where the decision-maker reasonably considers the offender may not comply with them.