McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board [2010] QSC 209

PARTIES:

JAMES MCGRANE

Applicant

v

THE QUEENSLAND STATE PAROLE BOARD

Respondent

FILE NO:

280 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2010

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

The decision of the respondent made on 25 September 2009 be set aside and the application for parole which was the subject of that decision be reconsidered by the respondent according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the respondent decided to decline the applicant’s parole application – where the applicant seeks judicial review of that decision – whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations when making that decision.

Corrective Services Act2006 (Qld) ss 3, 193, 227
Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act2009 (Qld) s 25

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ss 23, 24

McGrane v Queensland Parole Board [2009] QSC 380

COUNSEL:

J McGrane in person

S A McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the respondent

1. The applicant is a prisoner seeking a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application for parole.  This is one of many such refusals, the previous one being the subject of judicial review proceedings which were dismissed by P Lyons J last November.[1]

   [1]McGrane v Queensland Parole Board [2009] QSC 380.

1. This decision was made by the respondent Board on 25 September 2009, in respect of an application which it received on 27 May 2009. Before making its decision, the respondent wrote to the applicant on 26 August 2009, indicating that its preliminary view was that his application might not be successful and inviting him to make a further submission. But in the same letter, the applicant was informed that the 120 days, as then stipulated by s 193(5) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (“the CSA”), would expire on 7 October 2009 and that upon the premise that the Board would not make a decision by then, he was invited to “enliven [his] current application by making a new application immediately”. As it happened, the respondent did make its decision within the period of 120 days and in any case, s 193 was amended with an effect which would have avoided the consequence of a deemed refusal had the Board not reached its decision within that period.[2]

   [2]Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act2009 s 25 which relevantly commenced on 21 September 2009.

1. 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…