Day v Queensland Parole Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Day v Queensland Parole Board [2015] QSC 89

PARTIES:

TREVOR GLEN DAY
(applicant)
v
THE QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 7864/14

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2015

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

The order of the court is:

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

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant’s parole application was refused on the grounds that he posed an unacceptable risk to the community – where the respondent relied upon expert reports in reaching this conclusion – where the experts considered the applicant was at a high risk of re-offending – whether the respondent exercised its decision according to a rule or policy and without consideration of the merits

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 187
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), ss 20(2), 23(a), 23(b), 23(f), 23(g)

McQuire v South Queensland Regional Community Corrections Board [2003] QSC 414, cited
Queensland Parole Board v Moore (2012) 2 Qd R 294; [2010] QCA 280, considered
Wotton v State of Queensland (2012) 246 CLR 1, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S A McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the respondent

Background facts

1. Pursuant to s 187(1) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 ("the CS Act"), the respondent Board has power to hear and decide an application for a parole order by a prisoner.

1. On 13 May 2013, the applicant lodged an application with the Board for a parole order.  He was then serving a 9 year sentence for the offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child; three counts of rape; sodomy, and –indecent treatment or dealings with child under 16.

1. At a meeting on 19 July 2013, the Board decided to defer consideration of the application pending receipt of certain information which it had sought.  Amongst other things, the Board requested the preparation of a psychological and psychiatric assessment.

1. By its meeting on 7 February 2014, the Board had been furnished with a psychological report from Dr Gavin Palk and a psychiatric report from Dr Josephine Sundin.

1. The report of Dr Palk, Forensic and Consultant Psychologist, found that:

“In regards to the future risk of sexual violence, scores on the PCL-R, SORAG and SVR-20 indicate Mr Day currently falls in the medium risk range of being involved in further sexual offences.  However exposure to stressful situations and unsatisfactory relationships may increase his risk of engaging in his previous addictive pursuits of alcohol and gambling leading to becoming a high risk for re-offending.

. . .

Mr Day’s most recent offences appear to have only ceased when the victim reported them to his (victim’s) father.  Of concern, Mr Day appears to have an entrenched history of impulsive behaviour related to numerous sexual liaisons, gambling and alcohol misuse.  He shares many…