McQueen v Parole Board Queensland

The applicant, McQueen, sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent, the Parole Board Queensland, to suspend his parole indefinitely. McQueen, who is serving a life sentence for murder, had his parole suspended on multiple occasions due to breaches of parole conditions and alleged new offences. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had correctly applied the statutory requirement to provide reasons for its decision, and if it had discretion to withhold certain information on the grounds of confidentiality. The court examined whether the statutory obligation to provide reasons under the Act should be interpreted flexibly, akin to the common law principle of natural justice, and whether the respondent's discretion under the Act allowed it to withhold confidential information when providing reasons.

The court found that while the respondent was required to provide reasons for its decisions, it did not have unfettered discretion to withhold information on the basis of confidentiality. The statutory requirement to provide reasons must be interpreted with the same rigour as the common law principle of natural justice. The court held that public interest immunity, which might justify withholding certain information, was not incorporated into the statutory requirement to provide reasons. Therefore, the respondent's decision to withhold information on the grounds of confidentiality was erroneous. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the timing and communication of the decisions, which added to the unfairness of the process.

The court set aside the decisions made by the respondent on 20 December 2021 and 7 February 2022, directing the respondent to remake these decisions in accordance with the law. The court ordered the respondent to pay McQueen's costs of the application and granted liberty to apply for further orders on three business days' notice.