Harrod v Parole Board Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Harrod v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 084

PARTIES:

MARTIN HARROD

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 1414 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

01 April 2022

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDER:

1.       The application is dismissed.

2.       Each party is to bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – where the applicant is a self-represented prisoner – where he seeks a review of Queensland Parole Board’s decision to cancel his parole – where the Board has told him that he will be granted parole once suitable accommodation is found – where the decision to cancel the applicant’s parole is about to be superseded by another decision about his parole – where application out of time – whether utility in present application to review – where applicant’s grounds go to merit of decision rather than to errors in the decision making process – whether order for review ought to be made

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 205(2)(a)(iii)
JudicialReview Act 1991 (Qld), ss 20(2)(e),(h), 21(2)(e),(f),(g),(h)

Queensland Parole Board v Moore [2012] 2 Qd R 294, cited
Attorney-General (Qld) v Mitchell [2015] QSC 121, cited
McQueen v Parole Board of Queensland [2018] QSC 216, cited
Petrie v Qld Community Corrections Board [2006] QCA 474, cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant self-represented

Ms S Robb for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant self-represented
Parole Board Queensland for the respondent

  1. Mr Harrod has applied to the Court to review Parole Board Queensland’s decision of 23 December 2021 to cancel his parole order, a decision which was not varied on 27 January 2022. 

  2. Mr Harrod has been told by the Board that when he finds suitable accommodation, he will be released on parole.  That is not as simple as it sounds.  The potential risk scenarios for Mr Harrod involve, inter alia, problems with his accommodation and adverse relationships with co-residents.  According to a 2018 Accommodation Risk Assessment Report, in unsupported accommodation, Mr Harrod struggled to meet his basic living needs and presented with a high degree of anxiety.  Mr Harrod has supplied at least 18 different addresses to the Board since his return to custody, none of which have been suitable parole accommodation.

  3. Mr Harrod is a self-represented prisoner.  Like many in his position, he appears to be under the impression that, in this application, the Court may substitute its own view of whether he ought to be granted parole for the decision of the Board.  He stated in material filed recently that he would “like his Parole [cancellation] Lifted and Accommodation Approved”.

  4. As I attempted to explain to Mr Harrod at the hearing, in this application, the Court’s focus is not on whether the Board’s decision to cancel his parole was right or wrong but rather on whether the Board reached its decision lawfully – that is, in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harrod 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
[2022] QSC 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Harrod, sought judicial review of a decision by the Queensland Parole Board to suspend and then cancel his parole. The Board had indicated it would grant Mr Harrod parole when suitable accommodation was found. The court had to determine whether the application, which was out of time, should be reviewed and if it was appropriate to make an order for review given that the applicant's grounds related to the merits of the decision rather than errors in the decision-making process. The court considered whether the application had any utility in the present circumstances and whether the Board's decision-making process was flawed.

The court examined the evidence and submissions made to the Board and concluded that the Board had considered the relevant material and attempted to assist Mr Harrod in finding suitable accommodation. The Board had made its decisions after a detailed consideration of the evidence and the Board was meeting again to reconsider Mr Harrod's parole application. The court accepted that Mr Harrod had few options for accommodation that met the Board's suitability criteria, but he was encouraged to work with the relevant service providers in his search for suitable accommodation. The court found that the applicant had not identified any errors in the decision-making process of the Board.

The court dismissed Mr Harrod's application for judicial review as it was out of time and did not have any utility in the present circumstances. The applicant's grounds related to the merits of the decision rather than errors in the decision-making process, and the court found that the Board's decisions were reasonable and based on the evidence before it. The court concluded that it was not appropriate to make an order for review.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that each party bear their own costs. The Board was not seeking its costs. The decision of the court was that the application had no merit and was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Each party is to bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Board did not ask for its costs. Background On 23 August 1988, Mr Harrod pleaded guilty to murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He became eligible for parole on 23 August 2001. He was not released on parole until 6 March 2019. On 2 July 2019, within months of his release on parole, Mr Harrod’s parole order was suspended by a prescribed Board member. On 4 July 2019, the Board confirmed the decision to suspend. Thereafter, the Board met on eight occasions to reconsider Mr Harrod’s parole suspension having regard to further information. The Board met on 12 September 2019, 25 November 2019, 3 December 2019, 22 April 2020, 12 August 2020, 11 February 2021, 4 March 2021 and 8 July 2021. On each of those occasions the Board decided not to vary its decision to suspend Mr Harrod’s parole. At least since March 2020, the Board has been guided, in part, in its decisions about Mr Harrod’s parole by a report prepared by Dr Kovacevic. Dr Kovacevic’s report was provided in response to the Board’s request for his opinion on Mr Harrod’s risk of future offending and his suitability for parole. By the time he saw Dr Kovacevic, Mr Harrod had been released on parole on three previous occasions. On each occasion, his parole was suspended – twice because he had consumed illicit drugs and once (the third occasion) because he moved residence without seeking prior approval from his parole supervisors. His last residence was at accommodation known as Christine Court. Mr Harrod considered it relevant for me to note the following from Dr Kovacevic’s report – When he reflected on his placement at Christine Court, Mr Harrod explained that there was a woman resident in her thirties who was intellectually disabled and used to sneak into people’s rooms and steal their belongings. Mr Harrod was aware she had been caught doing this on a number of occasions. One day, Mr Harrod had an appointment with a psychologist and when he returned to his room he realised that his medication had been stolen. He suspected immediately who might have taken them. He said he asked the woman to keep away from his room. He insisted he made no threats towards her and he never assaulted or touched her inappropriately. Two days later he saw her talking to police and very soon after that police issued him with a Return to Prison Warrant. A subsequent letter from the Parole Board indicated that his accommodation at Christine Court was no longer suitable. With some frustration in his voice he pointed out that although no criminal offence had been committed and no charges had been laid against him, he lost his accommodation and his Parole Order was suspended.Since then, CREST has been assisting Mr Harrod in locating an alternative post-release placement. He proposed to return to the boarding house in Moorooka where he used to reside after his release in March 2019. He said he was happy there and he moved to Christine Court only about four weeks prior to his parole suspension. He said he wished he never left the boarding house. When asked why he did not stay, he explained he wanted to get away from a person who moved in and proved to be a drug user. The Parole Board approved his relocation to Christine Court on [the] assumption that this would be a better environment for him. Mr Harrod has since changed his mind and now wishes to return back to the boarding house, waiting for a bed to become available …

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Mr Harrod was also concerned at the hearing that the Board had erroneously taken into account that he had offended sexually against the deceased. Counsel for the Board acknowledged that, very early in the piece, the Board may have assumed that Mr Harrod had sexually mistreated the deceased in some way. But Mr Harrod was not charged with a sexual offence related to the murder. And some time ago, the Board disabused itself of the belief or understanding that Mr Harrod had sexually interfered with the deceased – any error having been corrected, on Mr Harrod’s behalf, by the Prisoners’ Legal Service in 2010. Also, the information before the Board included an “Advice to Parole Board Report” dated 2 July 2019, which made it clear that Mr Harrod had not been convicted of a sexual offence upon the women he murdered. Conclusion Overall, while Mr Harrod’s frustration and disappointment is understandable, he has not been able to identify any error in the decision making processes of the Board to suspend, and then cancel, his parole. I have considered the evidence before me – which was the evidence upon which the Board made its decision (apart from sealed evidence, which I did not unseal). The Board made its various decisions (all leading to the same outcome) after a detailed consideration of all of that material – which included voluminous submissions from Mr Harrod. The evidence placed before me indicated that the Board had attempted to encourage relevant service providers to assist Mr Harrod in his search for accommodation which met the Board’s suitability criteria in Mr Harrod’s case. The evidence placed before me shows that those service providers are working hard – but I accept that Mr Harrod has few options (in the context of the Board’s requirements for his accommodation). I note that the Board is meeting again to consider Mr Harrod’s parole application in a couple of weeks. I have already observed that the Board may wish to discuss accommodation criteria with Dr Kovacevic. Mr Harrod is encouraged to work with those assisting him (from ADS, ASCO and CREST) in his search for suitable accommodation, which provides for his needs, including his support needs, thereby ensuring community safety. For the reasons above, Mr Harrod’s out-of-time application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.