Burridge v Parole Board Queensland

Case

[2021] QSC 244

29 September 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Burridge v Parole Board Queensland [2021] QSC 244 [2021] QSC 244 29 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Burridge, a life prisoner serving a sentence for murder, sought judicial review of the Parole Board Queensland’s decision to refuse his application for parole. Mr Burridge had previously been granted parole on two occasions but was returned to custody and had his parole orders cancelled on both occasions. He made the present application for parole, which the Board declined. The Board’s decision was based on a statement of reasons that contained inaccuracies and failed to consider relevant evidence. Mr Burridge sought judicial review, arguing that the Board breached the rules of natural justice and failed to consider relevant considerations in its decision. The Board argued that the decision was made according to law and that it was not bound to accept the evidence before it.

The court considered whether the Board breached the rules of natural justice and failed to consider relevant considerations in deciding the risk the applicant would pose to the community if released on parole. The court found that the Board did breach the rules of natural justice and failed to consider relevant considerations in its decision. The Board’s statement of reasons contained inaccuracies and proceeded on a factually inaccurate understanding of the applicant’s criminal history, supposed violent responses to emotional distress and custodial behaviour. The Board failed to consider expert evidence about recommended parole conditions, and the court found that the Board failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the application in exercising its discretion in accordance with policy.

The court set aside the Board’s decision and referred the matter back to the Board for reconsideration. The court also ordered that the Board pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding. The court directed that the Board and the applicant advise the court whether they require an oral hearing on the proposed directions or are content for the court to make directions on the papers without an oral hearing.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

  • Failure to Consider

  • Applied Policy Without Regards to the Merits

  • Abuse of Process

  • Costs

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4

Cases Cited

15

Statutory Material Cited

2

R v Marshall [1995] QCA 515