Fake cop conman Samuel Narroway loses Supreme Court appeal for freedom – and this time he has to pay

Conman Samuel Narroway impersonated a police officer to extort money from strangers. After losing a last-ditch bid for freedom, he wanted taxpayers to foot his legal bills.

Samuel Narroway outside court in 2017. Picture: Greg Higgs

Serial conman Samuel Mark Narroway has lost a Supreme Court bid to be released from prison.

Narroway, 31, who was jailed for impersonating a police officer and ripping off unsuspecting motorists with bogus fines, has also been ordered to pay thousands of dollars in costs.

The serial offender had sought a judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision not to release him into the community after deeming it “unsafe’’ to do so and refusing to accept a further release application before next January.

In her judgment refusing his appeal, Justice Julie McIntyre states that decision was correct and was supported by the board’s findings.

These included that Narroway’s recent expressions of remorse can be viewed with scepticism, he lacks insight for his behaviour, he has previously breached parole and that he is “at high risk of reoffending’’.

In his application, Narroway, who is serving a five-year sentence for offences including wearing a police uniform unlawfully, false imprisonment and deception, contended the Parole Board had “not accepted I have succeeded in all avenues of rehabilitation’’ available within prison and further “clinical treatment of my trauma and mental health is not available in a custodial setting”.

Samuel Mark Narroway is serving a five-year sentence and has failed to convince a judge he should be granted parole.

Samuel Mark Narroway was one of two men charged with impersonating a police officer to four separate victims.

Narroway was sentenced in the District Court in 2020 to four years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and eight months after being convicted of impersonating a police officer three times in a 24-hour period in 2019 to obtain money.

In one incident, he convinced a victim to withdraw $290 to pay a bogus fine. In another, his victim was placed in handcuffs and driven to their parents’ house.

At a Parole Board meeting on February 10 last year, Narroway’s release date was set as May 6, but on February 25 he was sentenced for additional offending and on March 8 the parole Board revoked its decision because of his additional sentence.

He was invited to reapply for release, which he did on March 9 last year, but at its meeting on August 2 the board decided not to release him into the community because he was still unsafe.

After Justice McIntrye handed down her judgment, the Crown applied for costs – which Narroway opposed after acknowledging he would be in custody “for a significant amount of time’’ following his loss.

He said a costs order would “put me into financial hardship, most likely bankruptcy’’.

“I don’t believe it will serve justice in this case, Your Honour,’’ he told Justice McIntyre.

Justice McIntyre told him the “usual course is costs follow’’ and ordered against him.

Narroway, who has studied religion in jail and gained a certificate in Christian ministry, has also launched Supreme Court action against the Department for Correctional Services for refusing to allow the delivery of religious letters and literature.