Burns v Parole Board Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Burns v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 301

PARTIES:

CLINTON BURNS

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9627 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for statutory order of review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2024

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   Each party is to bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment and made an application for parole – where the respondent refused the parole application – where the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision on the grounds of unreasonableness, natural justice, and failure to take relevant considerations into account – whether any grounds of review are made out – whether the decision of the respondent ought to be set aside

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 180, s 193(1)(b)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 20(2), s 22(2)

Batts v Department of Corrective Services; Fogarty v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 206, cited
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, cited
Hickson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 133, cited
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, cited
McGrane v The Queensland State Parole Board [2012] QSC 350, cited
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, cited
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541, cited
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
RC Taylor for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Parole Board Queensland Legal Services for the respondent

  1. The applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision of 10 July 2024, which refused his application for a parole order under s 193(1)(b) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld).

  2. The application is brought pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (“JR Act”).

  3. The applicant is self-represented.  He has articulated the grounds of his appeal in his written outline of submission and orally.

  4. A fair summary of the grounds of the application is first, that the respondent’s decision is unreasonable; second, that there has been a denial of natural justice; third, that there has been a want of procedural fairness; fourth, that the respondent has failed to place proper weight on particular facts; and fifth, that the respondent has failed to take into account relevant considerations.

  5. Some of the factors relied on and respect of each of these grounds are overlapping.

  6. The respondent contends that the grounds can broadly be categorised into three parts. Ground one is unreasonableness. Ground two is a breach of natural justice (which also encompasses the ground of procedural fairness). Ground three is a failure…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burns 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
[2024] QSC 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burns v Parole Board Queensland concerns an application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Parole Board Queensland, to refuse the applicant’s application for parole. The applicant, serving a sentence of imprisonment, had applied for parole under the Corrective Services Act. After a series of delays and communications, the respondent informed the applicant of its decision to refuse parole on 10 April 2024, but the applicant was unaware of this decision when initiating judicial review proceedings on 23 July 2024. The respondent later communicated the decision again on 31 July 2024 and offered to cover the applicant’s costs in relation to the review application. The applicant sought to amend his application to review the final decision made on 10 July 2024. The court had to determine whether any of the grounds for judicial review, namely unreasonableness, breach of natural justice, and failure to take relevant considerations into account, were valid.

The court identified the key issues as whether the decision to refuse parole was unreasonable, whether there was a breach of natural justice, and whether the respondent failed to take relevant considerations into account. The court noted that the discretion to decide parole applications is broad and unfettered, but it must be exercised with regard to the purpose of the Corrective Services Act, which is community safety and crime prevention. The court also had to consider the relevance of the Ministerial Guidelines, which, while not binding, must be taken into account. The applicant argued that the respondent’s decision was unreasonable, breached natural justice, and failed to consider relevant factors. The respondent argued that the decision was made correctly and that the application was of no utility as it sought to review a decision that had already been made.

The court found that the decision to refuse parole was not unreasonable, did not breach natural justice, and did take relevant considerations into account. The court considered the respondent’s adherence to the purpose of the Corrective Services Act and the relevant guidelines. The court concluded that the decision-making process was lawful, and there was no basis for the court to interfere with the decision. The court also noted that the application for judicial review was of no utility as it sought to review a decision that had already been made. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that each party bear their own costs. The decision underscores the limited scope of judicial review in cases involving the exercise of broad discretionary powers by administrative bodies, particularly in the context of parole decisions. The court’s reasoning highlights the importance of adherence to statutory purposes and guidelines, while also reaffirming the principle that judicial review is confined to the legality of the decision and not its merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Each party is to bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent contends that the grounds can broadly be categorised into three parts. Ground one is unreasonableness. Ground two is a breach of natural justice (which also encompasses the ground of procedural fairness). Ground three is a failure to take relevant considerations into account (which deals with the issue of emphasis of the weight that the Parole Board put on particular facts). I therefore proposed to deal with the application by the three categories identified by the respondent, recognising that all of them incorporate each of the five matters which have been raised by the applicant.Background The applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment of seven years, three months and 24 days. The offences for which he was imprisoned comprise weapons, violence, and property related offending. The applicant’s parole eligibility date was 9 November 2023, and his custodial end date is 31 October 2027. The applicant applied for parole pursuant to section 180 of the Corrective Services Act on 1 February 2024. The respondent considered his application and made a decision to refuse it on 10 April 2024. The respondent, however, failed to inform him of the outcome of that meeting. On 29 April 2024, the applicant inquired as to the progress of his application. The respondent again delayed, writing to him on 5 June 2024 informing him of its decision of 10 April, and enclosing a copy of the documents that it had considered. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond. The applicant made submissions and provided further material in response to the 10 April decision. The respondent again considered his application on 10 July 2024 together with his further material. The respondent decided to refuse to grant parole pursuant to s 193(1)(b) of the Corrective Services Act. On 23 July 2024, the applicant commenced proceedings for a statutory order of review of the 10 April decision pursuant to s 22(2) of the JR Act. At the time the applicant was not aware that the final decision had already been made by the Parole Board at its meeting of 10 July 2024. On 31 July 2024, after the applicant had commenced this application for judicial review, the Parole Board wrote to the applicant informing him of the decision of 10 July. The Board requested that the applicant discontinue this application given that a final decision had been made. The Board offered to pay the applicant’s cost of filing the application for judicial review and respect of the 10 April decision. When the matter came on for review on 8 August 2024, the Parole Board sought that the application be dismissed given that it was of no utility as a final decision had now been made. The applicant advised the court that he was seeking to review that final decision. The court ordered the respondent provide the applicant with a statement of reasons. The respondent provided a statement of reasons on 22 August 2024. On 18 September 2024, the applicant filed an amended application for a statutory order for review and an accompanying affidavit.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The decision that the applicant therefore seeks to review is the final decision of 10 July 2024 and not the preliminary decision of 10 April 2024.Legislative context in which the decision was made The legislative context in which this decision was made was recently summarized by Cooper J in Hickson v Parole Board Queensland.[1] I gratefully adopt his Honour’s summary of the legislative context as follows:[2]“[18] The respondent is established under Ch 5, Pt 2 of the Corrective Services Act. One of its functions is to decide applications for parole orders, other than court-ordered parole orders.[19] A prisoner can apply for a parole order if they have reached their parole eligibility date in relation to their period of imprisonment. After receiving an application for a parole order, the respondent must decide to either grant or refuse to grant the application. The respondent has the power, by a parole order, to release a prisoner who has reached his or her parole eligibility date.[20] The Corrective Services Act does not specify the criteria for deciding whether to grant or refuse an application for a parole order. The discretion has been described as broad and unfettered, but one which is to be exercised having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Corrective Services Act. The relevant purpose is “community safety and crime prevention through the humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders.” It has been observed that this statement expresses two purposes (community safety and crime prevention) and three equally important ways of achieving those purposes (containment, supervision and rehabilitation).[21] The Minister may make guidelines about policies to help the respondent in performing its functions. The relevant Ministerial Guidelines were issued on 20 December 2021 and took effect from 31 December 2021. Consistently with the purpose of the Corrective Services Act, clause 1.2 of the Ministerial Guidelines states that “[w]hen considering whether a prisoner should be granted a parole order, the highest priority for the Parole Board Queensland should always be the safety of the community”. Clause 1.3 states that the respondent should consider whether there is an unacceptable risk to the community if the prisoner is released to parole and whether the risk to the community would be greater if the prisoner does not spend a period of time on parole under supervision prior to the fulltime completion of their prison sentence.[22] The Ministerial Guidelines do not fetter the exercise of the broad discretion of the respondent in deciding whether to grant or refuse an application for a parole order. They do not prescribe or limit how that discretion is to be exercised. They are, however, to be regarded as a relevant factor and must be taken into account by the respondent.” (citations omitted) [1][2024] QSC 133. [2]At [18]–[22]. The effect of this legislative context is that the nature of this review is a judicial review of an administrative decision. Such a judicial review is confined to the legality of the decision. It is concerned with whether the decision is one which the respondent was authorised to make.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.