Douglas v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board

In the case of Douglas v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board, the applicant sought a statutory order of review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to quash the respondent's decision to suspend his parole order for an indefinite period. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in 2014 and was released on parole with conditions, including that he not commit an offence. The respondent, the Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board, made a decision to suspend the applicant’s parole on 29 January 2015, citing the applicant's involvement in unresolved trafficking offences and additional charges brought in January 2015. The applicant argued that the respondent improperly exercised its power by adopting a blanket approach, failing to consider relevant individual circumstances, and rigidly applying a policy without regard to the merits of his case.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's power under section 205 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) was triggered by the charges brought during the parole period, whether the circumstances justified the suspension, and whether the respondent improperly exercised its discretion. The court found that the respondent’s decisions were based on the applicant's potential to commit further offences, not solely on the unresolved charges, and that the respondent had considered some individual circumstances, albeit insufficiently. The court concluded that while the decisions were questionable, they were not so unreasonable as to warrant setting them aside under the Act.

The court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that none of the grounds for review were substantiated. The court noted that the respondent had taken into account some individual factors but did not sufficiently address the merits of the case in light of the applicant's progress in rehabilitation and time spent in custody. However, the court found that the decisions, though questionable, were not so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made them. Consequently, the application for a statutory order of review was dismissed.