Armitage v Parole Board Queensland

In the appeal of Armitage v Parole Board Queensland, the appellant, who had been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment, challenged the decision of the Parole Board Queensland to deny his application for parole. The Parole Board had issued a no cooperation declaration in respect of the appellant under section 175L of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), which was predicated on a finding that the appellant was a "no body-no parole prisoner" under section 175C of the Act. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in the construction of section 175C, leading to an incorrect finding that he was a no body-no parole prisoner. The primary judge had determined that the word "remains" in section 175C referred to those remains that continue to exist and are capable of being located, which the appellant contended was inconsistent with the ordinary reading of the section.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the primary judge erred in the interpretation of section 175C and, specifically, whether the term "remains" in that section refers to remains that continue to exist and are capable of being located or to those remains that no longer exist. The appellant argued that when any missing part of the body or remains of a victim no longer exist and the balance has been located, the "remains" have been located according to the ordinary reading of the section. Conversely, the primary judge had found that the "remains" of the victim had not been located under the circumstances where any missing part of the body or remains of a victim no longer exist and the balance had been located.

The court found that the primary judge had erred in her interpretation of section 175C. It held that on a proper construction of the section, the word "remains" refers to a circumstance where the whole, or a part, of the body of the victim no longer exists. The court observed that the primary judge's construction of the section led to the result that the "remains" of the victim were treated as having not been located when any missing part of the body or remains of a victim no longer existed and the balance had been located, which was inconsistent with the ordinary reading of the section. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside.

The court ordered that the decision of the respondent made on 13 February 2023 be set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the decision according to law. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the application and the appeal. This outcome resulted in the appellant having the opportunity to have his parole application reconsidered by the respondent, with the appropriate legal principles applied to the interpretation of section 175C of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld).