In this interesting case, Jackson J considered the question of the entitlement of an applicant for parole to appear in person before the Parole Board. The circumstances of this matter were quite unusual in that there had been substantial delay between the date on which the application was made and the date on which it was finally determined (501 days). The essential question was whether or not the applicant was entitled, as a matter of natural justice, to appear before the Parole Board to answer matters raised against his application in certain medical reports. The applicant had been afforded an opportunity to respond in writing, but he claimed that he was entitled to appear before the Board to persuade them in his favour. His Honour undertook an extensive analysis of the right to appear on an application for parole and, in particular, the principle that where the Court does not expressly require that the rules of natural justice are to be applied, the court must construe the legislation to ascertain whether or not the rules were to be excluded? His Honour undertook a close consideration of the legislation in question and concluded that it could not be said that an intention existed in the legislation to exclude a right of appearance in every case. On the facts of the case before him, his Honour concluded that the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Board to try to persuade its members of his case. However, on the facts of the matter before the Court it was held that the Parole Board had failed to take into account all of the matters which it was required to consider. The Board’s decision was set aside.