Maycock v Queensland Parole Board - [2013] QSC 302

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2013] QSC 302

PARTIES:

GREGORY WILLIAM MAYCOCK
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4208 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2013

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1 the respondent’s decision made on 1 February 2013 refusing the application for a parole order made on 19 September 2011 is set aside.

2 the matter to which the decision relates is referred to the respondent for further consideration in accordance with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for a statutory order of review of a parole board’s decision – where the applicant was given the opportunity to provide written representations and submissions to the parole board – where the applicant was refused an oral hearing – whether the applicant is entitled to appear and make oral submissions and representations to the parole board

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant put submissions and representations before the parole board – where the parole board were required to take a relevant consideration into account under ministerial guidelines – whether not making a finding in the statement of reasons proved failure to take the relevant consideration into account

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 27B

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 187(1), s 189, s 190, s 193(3), s 227(1)
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 137(1), s 137(2)
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 169(1), s 169(8)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 20(2)(a), s 20(2)(e), s 23, s 23(b), s 24, s 33

Adams v Lambert [2006] HCA 10; (2006) 228 CLR 409, cited
Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57; (1990) 170 CLR 596, cited
Baba v Parole Board of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 338, considered
Cutts v The Board (Queensland Regional Parole Board) [2009] QSC 208, distinguished
Cutts v The Board of the Queensland Regional Parole Board[2010] QCA 60, distinguished
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 197 ALR 398, cited
Johns v Release on Licence Board (1987) 9 NSWLR 103, cited
Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs[1987] FCA 457; (1987) 14 ALD 291, cited
Leggett v Queensland Parole Board [2012] QSC 121, considered
McGrane v Queensland Parole Board [2010] QSC 209 distinguished
Minister of Aboriginal affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, distinguished
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf[2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323, cited
Mulley v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board [2009] QSC 228, distinguished
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth[2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319, cited
Queen & The Parole Board; Ex parte…

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 Maycock 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: [2013] QSC 302
Decision Date: 1 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Maycock v Queensland Parole Board, the applicant, Maycock, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Queensland Parole Board. The central dispute was whether Maycock was entitled to an oral hearing before the board when making his application for parole. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. Maycock challenged the board's decision to refuse him an oral hearing, despite providing written submissions, arguing that this refusal constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Additionally, Maycock contended that the board failed to take into account a relevant consideration as outlined in the ministerial guidelines when making their decision.

The court examined the grounds for review, focusing on whether the refusal to grant an oral hearing was unjust and whether the board failed to consider a relevant factor. The applicant argued that the opportunity for an oral hearing was a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. The court considered whether the written submissions alone were sufficient or if an oral hearing was necessary. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the board's statement of reasons evidenced consideration of the relevant guideline, as required by law.

The court found that the refusal to grant an oral hearing did indeed breach procedural fairness, as the opportunity to be heard is a fundamental right in administrative law. Additionally, the court held that the board's failure to explicitly address a relevant consideration in their reasons indicated a procedural error. Consequently, the court set aside the board's decision and referred the matter back for reconsideration, ensuring that Maycock's right to procedural fairness was respected and that all relevant considerations were duly taken into account.

The court's order mandated that the Queensland Parole Board revisit Maycock's parole application, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and the consideration of all relevant guidelines. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to administrative law principles in parole hearings to safeguard the rights of applicants.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1 the respondent’s decision made on 1 February 2013 refusing the application for a parole order made on 19 September 2011 is set aside.

2 the matter to which the decision relates is referred to the respondent for further consideration in accordance with these reasons.

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:	Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2013] QSC 302
PARTIES:	GREGORY WILLIAM MAYCOCK (applicant) v QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 4208 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	1 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 August 2013
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1 the respondent’s decision made on 1 February 2013 refusing the application for a parole order made on 19 September 2011 is set aside. 2 the matter to which the decision relates is referred to the respondent for further consideration in accordance with these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for a statutory order of review of a parole board’s decision – where the applicant was given the opportunity to provide written representations and submissions to the parole board – where the applicant was refused an oral hearing – whether the applicant is entitled to appear and make oral submissions and representations to the parole board ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant put submissions and representations before the parole board – where the parole board were required to take a relevant consideration into account under ministerial guidelines – whether not making a finding in the statement of reasons proved failure to take the relevant consideration into account Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 27B Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 187(1), s 189, s 190, s 193(3), s 227(1) Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 137(1), s 137(2) Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 169(1), s 169(8) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 20(2)(a), s 20(2)(e), s 23, s 23(b), s 24, s 33 Adams v Lambert [2006] HCA 10; (2006) 228 CLR 409, cited Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57; (1990) 170 CLR 596, cited Baba v Parole Board of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 338, considered Cutts v The Board (Queensland Regional Parole Board) [2009] QSC 208, distinguished Cutts v The Board of the Queensland Regional Parole Board[2010] QCA 60, distinguished Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 197 ALR 398, cited Johns v Release on Licence Board (1987) 9 NSWLR 103, cited Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs[1987] FCA 457; (1987) 14 ALD 291, cited Leggett v Queensland Parole Board [2012] QSC 121, considered McGrane v Queensland Parole Board [2010] QSC 209 distinguished Minister of Aboriginal affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, distinguished Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf[2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323, cited Mulley v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board [2009] QSC 228, distinguished Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth[2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319, cited Queen & The Parole Board; Ex parte…