Anderson v President of the Parole Board Queensland

The matter of Anderson v President of the Parole Board Queensland was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Anderson, is a prisoner serving a life sentence and is challenging a decision by the respondent, the President of the Parole Board Queensland, to make a restricted prisoner declaration in respect of him for a term of 8 years and 6 months. This declaration means that Anderson is prohibited from applying for parole until 6 December 2031. Anderson's case is that his poor mobility and ill-health conditions are likely to significantly deteriorate in custody, such that his medical needs cannot be properly met. He contends that the respondent's decision to make the declaration for such a long period involved an error of law, and that the respondent failed to consider his right to be treated with dignity while deprived of his liberty, as required by the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The court had to determine whether the respondent's decision involved an error of law, and whether the respondent complied with the duty prescribed in s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). In particular, the court considered whether the respondent's decision in respect of the term of the declaration involved an error of law by failing to have regard to the applicant's right to be treated with dignity while deprived of his liberty, with particular regard to the applicant's special medical needs. The court also considered whether the respondent's reasons for the term of the declaration did not refer to any human rights considerations, whether to inform the public interest consideration as required by provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) or as required by s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

The court held that when deciding to make a restricted prisoner declaration, the President must take into account the matters contained in s 175H of the CS Act. In particular, the President must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to make a restricted prisoner declaration pursuant to s 175H(1), and in considering the public interest, the mandatory matters to which the President must have regard are those in s 175H(2). The court found that the respondent did not err in making the restricted prisoner declaration, and that the decision did not involve an error of law. The court also found that the respondent's reasons for the term of the declaration did refer to human rights considerations, and that the decision was lawful.

The court will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders which reflect these reasons.