Harms v Queensland Parole Board - [2008] QSC 163

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Harms v Qld Parole Board [2008] QSC 163
PARTIES: COLIN GORDON HARMS
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)
FILE NO: BS3075/08
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 4 August 2008
DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24 July 2008
JUDGE: Douglas J
ORDER: Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –
GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS –
HEARING – NATURE OF HEARING – DISCLOSURE OF
EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL FACTORS – where the
applicant was serving a term of imprisonment – where the
Queensland Parole Board rescinded a grant of parole –
whether documents used to reach the decision are properly
able to be kept from the applicant under a claim of public
interest privilege
Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s. 24AA
Corrective Services Act 2006, s. 205, s. 211
Judicial Review Act 1991, s. 20(2)(a)(i), s. 20(2)(b)
Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404, distinguished
Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88,
distinguished
Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667,
considered
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children [1978] AC 171, distinguished
Duncan v Cammell, Laird & Co Ltd [1942] AC 624, cited
Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police
(2008) 82 ALJR 454, cited
Kidd v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services
[2000] QSC 405, cited
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, cited
R v Abdullah & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 188, cited
R v Harms [2000] QCA 419, cited
Re Solomon [1994] 2 Qd R 97, cited
Rogers v Home Secretary [1973] AC 388, cited
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, cited
COUNSEL: D. O’Gorman SC for the applicant
P. Flanagan SC and K. Mellifont for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Prisoners’ Legal Service for the applicant
Crown Law for the respondent

Douglas J: The issue in this case is whether documents used by the Queensland Parole Board in deciding to rescind its earlier decision to release the applicant on parole are properly able to be kept from him because of a claim of public interest privilege.
Background
The applicant has been in prison since 18 December 1999 when he was convicted of the attempted murder of someone alleged to have been a police informant and sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment. Subsequently, on 1 March 2001, he was also convicted of a number of drug offences and sentenced to a head term of eight years and six months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the earlier sentence. He was also sentenced on 31 October 2001 in the District Court to six months imprisonment wholly suspended for receiving and unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation. His full time discharge date is 31 August 2009 but he was eligible for consideration for release on parole from 12 April 2007. On…

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 Harms v Queensland Parole Board 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: [2008] QSC 163
Decision Date: 4 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Harms, who was serving a term of imprisonment, sought judicial review of a decision by the Queensland Parole Board to rescind a grant of parole. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. The primary issue for determination was whether the Board's decision was legally sound and whether it adhered to the principles of procedural fairness.

The court examined whether the Board's decision-making process was flawed due to a lack of disclosure of evidence and material factors that could have influenced the outcome. The applicant argued that the Board failed to provide adequate information regarding the reasons for the revocation of parole. The court considered whether the Board's actions were consistent with the legal requirements for disclosure in parole hearings and whether the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

The court concluded that the Board's decision-making process was not procedurally unfair. It found that the Board had properly considered all relevant evidence and factors, and that the applicant had been given a sufficient opportunity to respond. The court held that the Board's decision to rescind the parole was lawful and in accordance with the applicable legal standards. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Harms v Qld Parole Board [2008] QSC 163
PARTIES:	COLIN GORDON HARMS (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS3075/08
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2008
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – HEARING – NATURE OF HEARING – DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL FACTORS – where the applicant was serving a term of imprisonment – where the Queensland Parole Board rescinded a grant of parole – whether documents used to reach the decision are properly able to be kept from the applicant under a claim of public interest privilege
Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s. 24AA Corrective Services Act 2006, s. 205, s. 211 Judicial Review Act 1991, s. 20(2)(a)(i), s. 20(2)(b)
Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404, distinguished Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 225 CLR 88, distinguished Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667, considered D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171, distinguished Duncan v Cammell, Laird & Co Ltd [1942] AC 624, cited
Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 82 ALJR 454, cited Kidd v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2000] QSC 405, cited Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, cited R v Abdullah & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 188, cited R v Harms [2000] QCA 419, cited Re Solomon [1994] 2 Qd R 97, cited Rogers v Home Secretary [1973] AC 388, cited Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, cited
COUNSEL:	D. O’Gorman SC for the applicant P. Flanagan SC and K. Mellifont for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Prisoners’ Legal Service for the applicant Crown Law for the respondent