McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board - [2011] QSC 121

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board [2011] QSC 121

PARTIES:

JAMES McGRANE
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND STATE PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

13762/10

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 April 2011

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 12, 13, 227, Schedule 1
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 20(1), 20(2), 20(2)(e), 20(2)(h), 23, 23(d), 23(f), 24(a), 24(b), 24(d)

COUNSEL:

Applicant in person
SA McLeod for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for respondent

DALTON J: The applicant seeks review of the Parole Board’s decision to refuse him parole on 24 September 2010. The application is made pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (the Act).

History of the Matter

On 18 June 2010 McMurdo J delivered judgment in the matter of McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board.[1] That was an application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent to refuse the applicant parole on 25 September 2009. McMurdo J set aside the decision of the Parole Board. He ordered the Parole Board to reconsider the application for parole, which was the subject of its decision of 25 September 2009. McMurdo J summarised the factual background to this matter as follows:

“[3] The applicant has been in prison since 1986, when he was convicted of the offences of murder and rape. He had pleaded guilty to the offence of rape, but not guilty to the murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility. By now he has served the 15 years imprisonment imposed for the rape offence and he is serving the life term imposed for the offence of murder. He was 17 years of age when he went to prison in 1986. Thus he has been in prison for the whole of his adult life. He has effectively no employment experience. He has undertaken tertiary studies whilst an inmate and has been awarded by the University of Southern Queensland a Degree of Bachelor of Information Technology, an Associate Degree of General Studies and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Personal Financial Planning, and he has successfully undertaken a course entitled Volunteer Tutoring in Literacy.
[4] His many unsuccessful applications for parole are summarised within the Parole Board Assessment Report which was written for the subject decision. That indicates that there were at least five, and perhaps more, applications from 2002 to 2008. …
…
[7] … it is necessary to say something of the history of the applicant’s imprisonments. In his first few years in prison, he committed a number of serious offences. There were three counts of wilful damage, for two of which he was sentenced to two years imprisonment. There were four counts of assault committed at various times in 1989 and 1990 for which he received various sentences ranging from four months to 18 months imprisonment. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for preparing to escape from lawful custody in 1989 and…

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 McGrane v Queensland State 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: [2011] QSC 121
Decision Date: 20 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, McGrane, sought judicial review of a decision by the Queensland State Parole Board, constituted under the Corrective Services Act 2006, which refused his application for parole. The case was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant contended that the Board's decision was flawed on several grounds, including errors of law and procedure, and that he had been denied procedural fairness.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Board's decision was legally sound, whether the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness, and whether the decision was based on relevant and irrelevant considerations. The applicant argued that the Board had failed to properly consider his rehabilitation and prospects for reintegration into society, and that the decision was influenced by irrelevant factors. The Board, on the other hand, contended that the decision was lawful and properly made, with due regard to all relevant considerations.

In dismissing the application, the court found that the Board's decision was within its legal powers and that no jurisdictional error had been made. The court held that the Board had adequately considered the applicant's rehabilitation and prospects for reintegration into society, and that the decision was not influenced by irrelevant considerations. The Board had properly weighed the relevant factors in accordance with the statutory criteria, and the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The court also found that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and confirmed the decision of the Queensland State Parole Board.

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:	McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board [2011] QSC 121
PARTIES:	JAMES McGRANE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND STATE PAROLE BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	13762/10
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 April 2011
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 12, 13, 227, Schedule 1 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 20(1), 20(2), 20(2)(e), 20(2)(h), 23, 23(d), 23(f), 24(a), 24(b), 24(d)
COUNSEL:	Applicant in person SA McLeod for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for respondent