Jennings v Queensland Parole Board

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jennings v Qld Parole Board [2007] QSC 364

PARTIES:

DEAN PHILLIP JENNINGS
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 7513 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2007

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

The application for statutory order for review be dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where applicant seeks review of decision by respondent to refuse the applicant’s application for parole – whether the respondent took into account irrelevant considerations – whether the respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration – whether the respondent observed procedures required by law for the making of such decisions

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 27B
Corrective Services Act
2006 (Qld), s 193, s 200, s 212, s 217

McQuirev South Queensland Regional Community Corrections Board [2003] QSC 414, considered
Petrie v Queensland Community Corrections Board [2007] QSC 188, considered
Weribone v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2007] QSC 129, considered

COUNSEL:

J W J Fenton for the applicant

S A McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Volk Lawyers for the applicant

C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent

  1. MARTIN J: This is an application to review the decision by the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a parole order.

Background

  1. On 21 July 1997 the applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Wall QC to a total of 12 years imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery in company, unlawful use of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation, misappropriation, deprivation of liberty, stealing and assault.

  1. On 22 May 2003 the applicant was released on parole after a period of open custody and granted permission to reside in South Australia.

  1. On 7 July 2004 the applicant was convicted in the Wollongong Local Court of a drink driving offence which offence had been committed on 13 June 2004.

  1. On 9 December 2004 the respondent suspended the applicant’s parole order indefinitely because the applicant had absconded from supervision and he had been charged with further driving offences, such as driving while under disqualification.

  1. After approximately 12 months at large, the applicant was extradited to Queensland and returned to custody on 21 October 2005.

  1. On 25 November 2005 the respondent cancelled the parole order effective from 24 November 2004.

  1. On 20 September 2006 the respondent’s secretariat received an application for parole from the applicant.

  1. On 1 December 2006 the respondent at the meeting held on that day, deferred consideration of the applicant’s application for parole in order to obtain and consider a psychological report and a psychiatric report.

  1. At its meeting on 13 April 2007 the respondent considered the applicant’s application for parole.

  1. On 30 April 2007 the respondent wrote to the applicant advising him that consideration was being given to not granting his application for parole on the basis that he may not be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jennings 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
[2007] QSC 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennings brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Queensland Parole Board to refuse his application for parole. The central issue was whether the board had adhered to the requisite legal standards in its decision-making process. Specifically, Jennings contended that the board had taken into account irrelevant considerations, failed to consider relevant factors, and did not observe the procedures required by law. The court was tasked with examining the decision-making process of the board to determine if it complied with the relevant statutory provisions and adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

In evaluating the board’s decision, the court considered the arguments presented by Jennings regarding the alleged procedural and substantive errors. The court examined whether the board had properly considered the statutory criteria for parole and if it had avoided any irrelevant factors. Additionally, the court scrutinised whether the board followed the procedural requirements mandated by law, including any procedural fairness obligations. The court found that the board had correctly applied the relevant legal criteria and had not taken into account any irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the court determined that all relevant considerations had been properly weighed and that the board had followed the required procedures. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision of the board was not subject to judicial review on the grounds presented by Jennings.

As a result of this analysis, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The court found no merit in Jennings’ contentions that the board had acted unlawfully or failed to observe procedural fairness. The decision of the Queensland Parole Board was upheld, and Jennings' application for a statutory order for review was dismissed. This outcome underscores the importance of ensuring that decision-making processes comply with statutory mandates and legal principles to maintain the integrity and fairness of administrative decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for statutory order for review be 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.