McGrane v The Queensland State Parole Board - [2012] QSC 350

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McGrane v The Queensland State Parole Board [2012] QSC 350

PARTIES:

JAMES McGRANE

(applicant)

AND

THE QUEENSLAND STATE PAROLE BOARD

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

5825 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2012

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1. The application for statutory review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – FAILURE TO MAKE DECISION – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole – whether the respondent failed to make a decision

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole – whether the respondent exercised its discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – BAD FAITH – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the respondent exercised its discretionary power in bad faith – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the respondent failed to observe procedures required by law – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PAROLE – BOARDS, TRIBUNALS ETC: POWERS, DUTIES AND CONSTITUTION – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 193(3), s 217
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(b), s 23, s 33

McQuire v South Qld RCCB [2003] QSC 414
Morales v South Queensland Regional Parole Board (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, White J, 3 August 2007)

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

SA McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Solicitor for the respondent

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 The 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: [2012] QSC 350
Decision Date: 15 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McGrane, a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder and 15 years for rape, applied for a statutory order of review of the Queensland State Parole Board's refusal of his parole application. The court examined whether the Board failed to make a decision, exercised its discretion improperly, acted in bad faith, or failed to follow statutory procedures. The applicant argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable and that the Board had not properly considered the merits of his application. The court found that the Board had indeed made a decision and that it had exercised its discretion in accordance with the law, without any evidence of bad faith. The Board had also observed all relevant statutory procedures, including considering the applicant's behaviour in prison and the risk he posed to the community. The court held that the applicant had not established any ground for review of the Board's decision.

The court held that the Board had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the law, and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Board. The Board had considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's criminal history, the nature of his crimes, and the risk he posed to the community. The court found that the Board had given proper consideration to the applicant's behaviour in prison and had not simply relied on the fact that he was serving a life sentence for murder. The court also held that the Board had followed all relevant statutory procedures, including providing the applicant with an opportunity to make representations and considering those representations before making its decision. The court found that the applicant had not established any ground for review of the Board's decision.

The court held that the Board's decision to refuse the applicant's parole application was not unreasonable. The Board had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and had considered all relevant factors. The court found that the Board had given proper consideration to the applicant's criminal history, the nature of his crimes, and the risk he posed to the community. The court held that the Board's decision was based on a proper assessment of the relevant facts and that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Board. The court also held that the Board had followed all relevant statutory procedures, including providing the applicant with an opportunity to make representations and considering those representations before making its decision. The court found that the applicant had not established any ground for review of the Board's decision.

The court dismissed the application for statutory review, holding that the Board's decision to refuse the applicant's parole application was not reviewable on the grounds argued by the applicant. The court found that the Board had properly exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and had considered all relevant factors. The court held that the Board's decision was based on a proper assessment of the relevant facts and that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Board. The court also held that the Board had followed all relevant statutory procedures, including providing the applicant with an opportunity to make representations and considering those representations before making its decision. The court found that the applicant had not established any ground for review of the Board's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for statutory review is 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 The Queensland State Parole Board [2012] QSC 350
PARTIES:	JAMES McGRANE (applicant) AND THE QUEENSLAND STATE PAROLE BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	5825 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 October 2012
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	1. The application for statutory review is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – FAILURE TO MAKE DECISION – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole – whether the respondent failed to make a decision ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole – whether the respondent exercised its discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – BAD FAITH – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the respondent exercised its discretionary power in bad faith – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the respondent failed to observe procedures required by law – whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PAROLE – BOARDS, TRIBUNALS ETC: POWERS, DUTIES AND CONSTITUTION – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 15 years imprisonment for rape – where the applicant makes application for a statutory order of review of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for parole –whether the applicant has established a ground for review of the respondent’s decision Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 193(3), s 217 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(b), s 23, s 33 McQuire v South Qld RCCB [2003] QSC 414 Morales v South Queensland Regional Parole Board (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, White J, 3 August 2007)
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf SA McLeod for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Solicitor for the respondent