Cook v Parole Board Queensland - [2025] QSC 88

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cook v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 88

PARTIES:

GRANT DOUGLAS COOK

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 89 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for judicial review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2025

JUDGE:

Hindman J

ORDERS:

1. The application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – where the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application for a parole order – where the applicant became eligible for parole on 9 September 2024 – where the applicant made an application for a parole order under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) – where the respondent refused to grant the application – where the applicant alleges that the respondent’s refusal to grant the application was not made in accordance with law – whether the respondent had failed to take into account relevant considerations in making its decision – whether the respondent’s decision was legally unreasonable – whether there had been a material denial of natural justice – whether there was an absence of evidence or other material to justify the respondent’s decision

Batts v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 206, referred to
Boyy v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 175, cited
Hickson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 133, cited
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, cited
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 390 ALR 590, cited
Nicholson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 232, cited

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s. 193

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss. 20, 23, 30, 31

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
K A McGree for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

Introduction

The applicant makes a judicial review application under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JRA) in relation to a decision of the respondent (Parole Board / Board) on 31 October 2024 (made pursuant to s. 193(1) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) CSA( ))to refuse to grant the applicant’s application for a parole order (Refusal Decision).
It is noted that the applicant has made a further application for a parole order, received by the Board on 3 March 2025, which is yet to be determined by the Board. I have confirmed with the applicant during the oral hearing that wishes to proceed with this application regardless and there is no submission by the Board that the application lacks utility.
The applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months for offences including serious assault of a person over 60, contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence), wilful damage, attempted enter dwelling…

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 Cook 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: [2025] QSC 88
Decision Date: 2 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cook v Parole Board Queensland involves the applicant, Cook, who sought a statutory order of review against the respondent, the Parole Board Queensland, for its decision to refuse his application for a parole order. The application was made under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld). The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Board failed to take into account relevant considerations in making its decision, whether the Board’s decision was legally unreasonable, and whether there had been a material denial of natural justice or an absence of evidence to justify the decision.

The court examined whether the Board had failed to consider relevant matters or had given improper weight to certain considerations, such as Cook’s response to previous parole grants, his offending history, institutional behaviour, and risks to society. The Board’s decision was scrutinised to determine if it was legally sound and if it adhered to natural justice principles. The applicant argued that the Board’s refusal was not substantiated by evidence, but the court found that the Board’s statement of reasons provided sufficient evidence to support its findings. Therefore, the ground alleging the absence of evidence was dismissed.

The court concluded that the Board had adequately considered the relevant factors and provided a detailed statement of reasons justifying its decision. The court held that the Board had not failed to take into account relevant considerations, nor was its decision legally unreasonable or in breach of natural justice. Consequently, the applicant's application for review was dismissed, and no order for costs was made.

The final orders were that the application for a statutory order of review was dismissed and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Ground 3 is not made out. Ground 4: absence of evidence or other material to justify the making of the Refusal Decision This ground is alluded to at [10], [11], [12], [14] and [15] of the applicant’s submissions. No further detail is provided. It may be gleaned that the applicant alleges that the Board based its decision on the following facts which are not substantiated by evidence:(a)the applicant had a poor response to community-based orders;(b)the applicant’s violent offending was provoked;(c)the applicant’s negative institutional behaviour;(d)the risk posed by the applicant to society due to his failure to complete recommended programs;(e)the applicant’s lack of suitable community accommodation. The Statement of Reasons sets out in a reasonably detailed way the evidence that justifies the findings of fact made by the Board, and why the Refusal Decision was made. The Board had sufficient bases to consider the above facts in making its decision. Ground 4 is not made out. Other matters Finally, I note that during oral argument the applicant made a general submission relating to his children – that his father had bought a house for him and his children, that the house was close to the school, that the children were presently residing with their mother a greater distance from the school, that as a consequence they were missing a lot of school, and it was therefore important for them to be able to return with him to the house. I think the submission was made as a concerned father, eager to impart why this application was important to him – which I understand. If it was intended to go further though and be a ground of review, there is no proper ground of review that I can identify. The Board did take into account in a general way such considerations – see the Statement of Reasons at [66], [82(b), (n)]. Conclusion It follows that the applicant’s application is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant seeks an order directing that the respondent reconsider the Refusal Decision according to law within a period of 7 days, plus costs. The only recoverable cost that has been incurred by the applicant is the payment of the filing fee. Summary of relevant decision history The applicant applied for a parole order on 18 August 2024, received by the Board on 20 August 2024 (Application). On 30 September 2024, the Board sent the applicant correspondence stating that the Board had considered the Application (on 26 September 2024) and had formed a preliminary view that the Application should be refused. The Board’s correspondence invited the applicant to make further written submissions before the Board made its final decision. The applicant did so, received 18 October 2024. On 31 October 2024, the Board met and considered the Application further and made the Refusal Decision. The applicant was informed of the Refusal Decision by a letter dated 31 October 2024. This proceeding was commenced on 8 January 2025. A statement of reasons for the Refusal Decision (Statement of Reasons) was provided on 22 January 2025. Ground 1: failure to take into account relevant matters / failure to give appropriate weight to certain matters Cooper J summarised the legal principles applicable to a failure to take into account a relevant consideration in Hickson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 133 at [44]–[46] (footnotes omitted):A failure to take into account a relevant consideration can only be made out as a ground of review if a decision maker fails to take into account a consideration that he or she is bound to take into account in making that decision. What factors a decision maker is bound to consider in making the decision is determined by construction of the statute conferring the discretion. If the relevant factors are not expressly identified in the statute, they must be determined by implication from its subject matter, scope and purpose.Where a decision maker is bound to take into account a consideration, there is a requirement to give that matter proper, genuine and realistic consideration. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the requirement does not encourage a “slide” into an impermissible merits review of the decision.Not every consideration that a decision maker is bound to take into account but fails to take into account will justify the court setting aside the impugned decision and ordering that the discretion be re-exercised according to law. A factor might be so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. There are six matters that the applicant submitted are relevant to the ground of a failure to take into account relevant matters: (a)the applicant’s response to previous grants of parole;[7] (b)the applicant’s offending history;[8] (c)the applicant’s institutional behaviour;[9] (d)the applicant’s risk of further offending – medication;[10](e)the applicant’s risk of further offending – failure to complete intervention programs;[11](f)the applicant’s risk of further offending – suitable accommodation.[12][7]Applicant’s submissions at [10]. [8]Applicant’s submissions at [11].[9]Applicant’s submissions at [12].[10]Applicant’s submissions at [13].[11]Applicant’s submissions at [14].[12]Applicant’s submissions at [15]. Ground 1(a): the applicant’s response to previous grants of parole

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cook v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 88
PARTIES:	GRANT DOUGLAS COOK (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 89 of 2025
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for judicial review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 April 2025
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDERS:	1. The application for a statutory order of review is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – where the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application for a parole order – where the applicant became eligible for parole on 9 September 2024 – where the applicant made an application for a parole order under the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) – where the respondent refused to grant the application – where the applicant alleges that the respondent’s refusal to grant the application was not made in accordance with law – whether the respondent had failed to take into account relevant considerations in making its decision – whether the respondent’s decision was legally unreasonable – whether there had been a material denial of natural justice – whether there was an absence of evidence or other material to justify the respondent’s decision Batts v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 206, referred to Boyy v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 175, cited Hickson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 133, cited Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, cited MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 390 ALR 590, cited Nicholson v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 232, cited Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s. 193 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss. 20, 23, 30, 31
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf K A McGree for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Legal Services Unit, Parole Board Queensland for the respondent