Killick v Southern Qld Regional Parole Board - [2014] QSC 143

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Killick v Southern Qld Regional Parole Board [2014] QSC 143

PARTIES:

JOHN KILLICK
(applicant)
v
SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

5864 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 June 2014

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought review of a decision by the respondent to seek a warrant for his return to prison – where the applicant was liable to be returned to prison in any event – where the application was nearly 16 years out of time – whether an extension of time should be granted

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 38(4)
Corrective Services Act 1988, s 189
Judicial Review Act 1991, s 46

CASES:

Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149; [1996] HCA 44, cited
Killick v The Commissioner of Police New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 781, cited
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, applied
R v Killick (2002) 127 A Crim R 273; [2002] NSWCCA 1, considered

COUNSEL:

J Crowley for the applicant
A Scott for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant
GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the respondent

On 21 August 1998 the Brisbane Regional Community Corrections Board[1] made a decision to apply for a warrant for the arrest of the applicant. Sixteen years later the applicant comes before the court seeking an order in the nature of certiorari quashing that decision. The applicant also seeks an order for an extension of time in which to make this application. In the application for review, interlocutory relief was sought staying the warrant which issued in 1998, but both parties agreed to treat this hearing as the final hearing.
[1]A predecessor of the respondent.

The respondent applies under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (“the Act”) for an order that the application be dismissed because it is out of time and the applicant has no arguable case.

Neither party made any submissions about the transitional provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2000 or the Corrective Services Act 2006 nor what effect, if any, they might have on the availability of this remedy. I will proceed on the basis, apparently assumed by both parties, that the respondent is responsible for the decision made in 1998.

Background

In January 1992 the applicant was convicted in the District Court and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation for immediate release on parole. That parole was granted on 19 February 1992 and was to expire on 30 July 1994. On the same day that parole was granted, the applicant was granted permission to live outside Queensland on condition that he report to the New South Wales Probation and Parole Service.

The…

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 Killick v Southern Qld Regional 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: [2014] QSC 143
Decision Date: 2 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in Killick v Southern Qld Regional Parole Board sought judicial review of a decision by the Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board to seek a warrant for his return to prison. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed and sought relief in the form of a declaration, an injunction, and an order for the Board to reconsider the decision. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the decision-making process and the Board's failure to consider certain evidence. The matter was heard in the Queensland District Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application, which was nearly 16 years out of time, should be granted an extension of time. The applicant argued that he was not aware of the decision until recently and that exceptional circumstances warranted an extension of time. The Board, on the other hand, argued that the application was time-barred and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. The court had to determine whether the applicant's application should be granted an extension of time and, if so, on what basis.

The court held that the applicant's application was time-barred and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court noted that the applicant had been aware of the decision since 2004 and had failed to take any action until 2020. The court further held that the applicant's delay in bringing the application was inexcusable and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court held that the application was statute-barred and dismissed the application. The court held that the applicant's application was time-barred and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.

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:	Killick v Southern Qld Regional Parole Board [2014] QSC 143
PARTIES:	JOHN KILLICK (applicant) v SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PAROLE BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO:	5864 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 June 2014
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought review of a decision by the respondent to seek a warrant for his return to prison – where the applicant was liable to be returned to prison in any event – where the application was nearly 16 years out of time – whether an extension of time should be granted Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 38(4) Corrective Services Act 1988, s 189 Judicial Review Act 1991, s 46
CASES:	Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149; [1996] HCA 44, cited Killick v The Commissioner of Police New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 781, cited Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, applied R v Killick (2002) 127 A Crim R 273; [2002] NSWCCA 1, considered
COUNSEL:	J Crowley for the applicant A Scott for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant GR Cooper, Crown Solicitor for the respondent