Gough v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board

In Gough v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board, the applicant, who was imprisoned for sexual offences, applied for judicial review of the Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board's refusal to grant him parole. The applicant had attempted to undertake and complete recommended intervention programs before his parole eligibility date, but Queensland Corrective Services failed to offer him enrolment in the programs prior to that date. The applicant sought to challenge the Board's decision on the basis that it was exercised according to a policy to refuse parole if recommended programs had not been completed and that the Board failed to consider the application on its merits.

The court identified several legal issues that needed to be addressed. The first was whether the Board exercised its power according to a policy to refuse parole if recommended programs had not been completed. The second was whether the Board failed to consider the application on its merits by relying on a report produced by Queensland Corrective Services that recommended the applicant not be granted parole. The third was whether the Board took irrelevant considerations into account by according undue weight to matters raised in opposition to the applicant's application. The fourth was whether the Board failed to take relevant considerations into account by not giving appropriate weight to matters raised in support of the applicant's application. The final issue was whether the Board's exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power.

The court found that the Board exercised its power according to a policy to refuse parole if recommended programs had not been completed and that this was a relevant consideration. However, the Board failed to consider the application on its merits by not giving appropriate weight to the fact that the applicant had attempted to undertake and complete the programs before his parole eligibility date. The court also found that the Board took irrelevant considerations into account by according undue weight to matters raised in opposition to the applicant's application. Finally, the court found that the Board's exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power.

The court set aside the Board's decision to refuse the applicant a parole order and referred the application to the Board for further consideration. The court also granted liberty to apply on short notice.