Morgan v Parole Board Queensland - [2022] QSC 280

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280

PARTIES:

EDWARD WALTER MORGAN
v

PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

FILE NO/S:

BS 3292 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

09 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2022

JUDGE:

Ryan J

ORDER:

1. The application is granted.

2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of order and as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW - Where the applicant applied for a review of various decisions of Parole Board Queensland: namely, granting him parole “on conditions”; revoking that decision; and ultimately refusing his application for a parole order – whether a valid decision to grant the applicant’s application for a parole order was ever made – whether, in later refusing his application for a parole order, the Board failed to take relevant considerations into account, including the applicant’s efforts at rehabilitation and his completion of a substance abuse program.

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 108(5), 180, 193, 194, 200, 205

JudicialReview Act 1991 (Qld) ss20(2)(a)(e), 23(b).

COUNSEL:

M Black for the applicant
Hunter JR KC and Robb SB for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore for the applicant
Parole Board Queensland for the respondent

Context

For obvious reasons, those making a decision under an enactment should understand the nature of the decision they are called upon to make, and their decision should reflect the decision-making power bestowed upon them by the enactment.
An eligible prisoner does not apply to Parole Board Queensland (the “Parole Board” or the “Board”) for “parole” under Subdivision 2 of Division 1 of Part 1 of Chapter 5 of the Corrective Services Act 2006. An eligible prisoner applies to the Parole Board for a parole order:
180Applying for parole order etc.
(1)A prisoner may apply for a parole order if the prisoner has reached the prisoner’s parole eligibility date in relation to the prisoner’s period of imprisonment.
…
(3)The application must be made—
(a) in the approved form; and
(b)to the parole board.
(4)A parole order for a prisoner may start on or after the prisoner’s parole eligibility date.
Division 2 of Part 1 of Chapter 5 of the Act governs the way in which an eligible prisoner’s application for a parole order is to be heard and decided by the Parole Board.
The decisions the Parole Board may make on an application for a parole order are set out in section 193. The Board may grant the application for a parole order; refuse to grant the application for a parole order; or defer making a decision about the application for a parole order until it has the information it considers necessary to make a decision.
The Board may inform a prisoner applicant of the decision it is thinking about making, to allow the prisoner an opportunity to place relevant information before the Board before its decision is actually…

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 Morgan v Parole Board Queensland 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: [2022] QSC 280
Decision Date: 09 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the applicant, Morgan, who sought a review of several decisions made by the Parole Board Queensland (the Board). These decisions included granting Morgan parole on conditions, revoking that decision, and ultimately refusing his application for a parole order. The central issue for the court was to determine if the Board ever made a valid decision to grant Morgan's application for a parole order and whether, in subsequently refusing his application, the Board failed to consider relevant factors such as Morgan's rehabilitation efforts and his completion of a substance abuse program.

The court identified that the Board had made multiple decisions regarding Morgan's parole application, each requiring careful scrutiny. The applicant argued that the Board had not properly considered the totality of his efforts towards rehabilitation and completion of the substance abuse program. The court was required to consider whether these omissions constituted an error of law and if they were significant enough to warrant judicial review. In assessing this, the court applied the principles of administrative law, focusing on the Board's duty to consider all relevant factors and ensure that decisions were made according to proper legal standards.

The court found that the Board had indeed erred in its consideration of Morgan's efforts at rehabilitation and his completion of the substance abuse program. This omission was significant enough to constitute a reviewable error of law. The court concluded that the Board's failure to take these considerations into account rendered its decision to refuse Morgan's application for a parole order invalid. Consequently, the court granted the application for judicial review.

The final orders made by the court included granting the application for judicial review and scheduling a hearing to determine the appropriate form of order and to address costs. This decision underscored the importance of the Board adhering to proper legal standards and considering all relevant factors when making decisions regarding parole applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is granted.

2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of order and as to costs.

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:	Morgan v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 280
PARTIES:	EDWARD WALTER MORGAN v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND
FILE NO/S:	BS 3292 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	09 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2022
JUDGE:	Ryan J
ORDER:	1. The application is granted. 2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of order and as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW - Where the applicant applied for a review of various decisions of Parole Board Queensland: namely, granting him parole “on conditions”; revoking that decision; and ultimately refusing his application for a parole order – whether a valid decision to grant the applicant’s application for a parole order was ever made – whether, in later refusing his application for a parole order, the Board failed to take relevant considerations into account, including the applicant’s efforts at rehabilitation and his completion of a substance abuse program. Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 108(5), 180, 193, 194, 200, 205 JudicialReview Act 1991 (Qld) ss20(2)(a)(e), 23(b).
COUNSEL:	M Black for the applicant Hunter JR KC and Robb SB for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore for the applicant Parole Board Queensland for the respondent