Millar v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services

In the matter of Millar v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services, the applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the Chief Executive regarding breaches of prison discipline. The applicant contested two primary decisions: the first was that he was in possession of a radio without approval, and the second was that he had refused to provide a urine sample, resulting in a deemed positive test for prohibited substances. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that he was not informed that he required approval to possess a radio, and that the decision-maker's conclusion that he had approval was an error of law. Additionally, the applicant contended that the refusal to provide a urine sample did not necessarily prove consumption of a prohibited substance likely to induce intoxication, and that the failure to provide a sample within a reasonable time did not establish a breach of prison rules.

The court considered whether the decision-maker had erred in concluding that the applicant had approval for the radio and whether the applicant's failure to provide a urine sample within a reasonable time constituted a breach of prison rules. The court noted that the question of whether the applicant had approval for the radio was a factual matter for the decision-maker, and there was no error of law in the decision. Regarding the urine sample, the court held that the applicant's refusal to provide a sample did not automatically establish the use of a prohibited substance likely to induce intoxication. Furthermore, the court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had wilfully consumed or inhaled a substance likely to induce an intoxicated state. The court quashed the decisions regarding both breaches and ordered that the findings be expunged from the register.

The court's final orders included dismissing the application for review concerning the radio breach, quashing the decisions related to the urine sample breach, and expunging the findings from the register. The court also directed that the person in charge of the register delete the details of these decisions. The application for review was otherwise dismissed, with no further orders made in relation to the other grounds of review.