Neyens v President of the Parole Board Queensland

The case of Neyens v President of the Parole Board Queensland involved the applicant, who was convicted of murdering two people and sentenced to life imprisonment. The President of the Parole Board Queensland made a restricted prisoner declaration in relation to the applicant under section 175H of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), which effectively means that the applicant’s parole application is taken to be refused and he may not apply for parole while the declaration is in force. The applicant contended that the decision involved an error of law arising from a misconstruction of section 175H(2)(b), which requires the president to consider “any risk the prisoner may pose to the public if the prisoner is granted parole.” The applicant argued that the president failed to consider whether parole conditions or any other matters would mitigate his risk. The applicant sought an order that the respondent indemnify him for his costs of the proceeding. The court had to decide whether the error of law was made and, if so, whether the applicant was entitled to an order for indemnity of costs.

The court examined the reasons provided by the president for making the restricted prisoner declaration and noted that the president had considered the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the applicant’s offences, as well as the risk he posed to the public if granted parole. The court found that the president had not misconstrued section 175H(2)(b) but had correctly interpreted it as not requiring consideration of whether parole conditions or any other matters would mitigate the applicant’s risk. The court held that the president was not required to consider parole conditions or any other factors that might mitigate the applicant’s risk when making the restricted prisoner declaration. The court further found that the applicant was not entitled to an order that the respondent indemnify him for his costs of the proceeding, as the application for review was unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceeding.