Armitage v Parole Board Queensland - [2023] QSC 209

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Armitage v Parole Board Queensland [2023] QSC 209

PARTIES:
MATTHEW LESLIE ARMITAGE

(applicant)
v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILENO/S: BS2380/23

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application for judicial review

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 22 September 2023

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 11 September 2023

JUDGE: Hindman J

ORDER: The application is dismissed. The applicant is to supply submissions on costs by 3 October 2023. The respondent is to supply submissions on costs by 10 October 2023.

CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – UNREASONABLENESS - where the

applicant was convicted of manslaughter - where parts of the body of the victim have never been located – where the applicant made an application for parole under the provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (the Act) - where the Act empowered the respondent to grant or refuse parole - where argument as to if the applicant is a no body-no parole prisoner under the Act - where by s 193A of the Act the respondent must refuse parole for a no body-no parole prisoner unless “satisfied the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location” – where the respondent purported to make a decision that the applicant was a no body-no parole prisoner and had not “cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location”

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PAROLE – BOARDS, TRIBUNALS ETC: POWERS, DUTIES AND CONSTITUTION

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 175B, 175C, 175K, 175L, 175O, 175P, 175Q, 175R, 176B, 180, 193A

Corrective Services (No Body, No Parole) Amendment Bill 2017
Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507

Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] 2 QR 645

COUNSEL: A Scott KC and D Caruana for the applicant D Keane KC and S Robb for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Jahnke Lawyers for the applicant

Parole Board Qld Legal Services for the respondent

Introduction

Section 175C of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (CSA) is the gateway provision to the application of Queensland’s “no body, no parole” scheme to certain prisoners. It provides:

Meaning of no body-no parole prisoner

A prisoner is a no body-no parole prisoner if -
(a)the prisoner is serving a period of imprisonment for a homicide offence; and
(b)either -
(i)the body or remains of the victim of the offence have not been located; or
(ii)because of an act or omission of the prisoner or another person, part of the body or remains of the victim has not been located.

The parties agree that s. 175C(a) is satisfied in this case. The parties dispute whether
s. 175C(b) is satisfied. This case concerns the proper construction of s. 175C(b).

The respondent, Parole Board Queensland (Board), contends that in the circumstances of this case where about 80-85% of the victim’s skeletal remains have been located but…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armitage v Parole Board Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QSC 209
Decision Date: 22 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Armitage v Parole Board Queensland involved the applicant, who had been convicted of manslaughter, seeking judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Parole Board Queensland, to deny his application for parole. The key issue in this matter was whether the applicant qualified as a "no body-no parole prisoner" under the Corrective Services Act 2006, and if so, whether he had sufficiently cooperated in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim's location. The court had to determine whether the respondent's decision to deny parole was legally sound and based on relevant considerations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent was correct in determining that the applicant was a "no body-no parole prisoner" and had not cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation to identify the victim’s location, as required by section 193A of the Act. The court needed to examine whether the respondent's decision was unreasonable and whether it took into account all relevant considerations. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent had applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The court held that the respondent's decision was lawful and reasonable. It found that the respondent had correctly identified that the applicant was a "no body-no parole prisoner" because the victim's body had not been located. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the respondent's finding that the applicant had not cooperated satisfactorily with the investigation to locate the victim’s body. Therefore, the respondent's decision to deny parole was justified and not open to judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness or failure to consider relevant matters.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to provide submissions on costs by 3 October 2023, and the respondent to provide submissions on costs by 10 October 2023.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed. The applicant is to supply submissions on costs by 3 October 2023. The respondent is to supply submissions on costs by 10 October 2023.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Armitage v Parole Board Queensland [2023] QSC 209
PARTIES:	MATTHEW LESLIE ARMITAGE (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILENO/S:	BS2380/23
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for judicial review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	22 September 2023
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	11 September 2023
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDER:	The application is dismissed. The applicant is to supply submissions on costs by 3 October 2023. The respondent is to supply submissions on costs by 10 October 2023.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – UNREASONABLENESS - where the applicant was convicted of manslaughter - where parts of the body of the victim have never been located – where the applicant made an application for parole under the provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (the Act) - where the Act empowered the respondent to grant or refuse parole - where argument as to if the applicant is a no body-no parole prisoner under the Act - where by s 193A of the Act the respondent must refuse parole for a no body-no parole prisoner unless “satisfied the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location” – where the respondent purported to make a decision that the applicant was a no body-no parole prisoner and had not “cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location” CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PAROLE – BOARDS, TRIBUNALS ETC: POWERS, DUTIES AND CONSTITUTION Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 175B, 175C, 175K, 175L, 175O, 175P, 175Q, 175R, 176B, 180, 193A