Nijp v Parole Board Queensland

The case of Nijp v Parole Board Queensland involved the applicant, who was seeking judicial review of the decisions made by the Parole Board to refuse him parole. The applicant, who had been imprisoned for serious offences of burglary and rape, argued that the Board had failed to take into account relevant considerations when denying his parole applications. These considerations included the risk to the community if he did not complete a specific program until closer to the end of his sentence and the availability of an equivalent program in the community. The applicant contended that the Board had not adequately considered the infrequent scheduling of the Inclusion Sexual Offenders Program (ISOP) at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated, the existence of a waitlist for the program, and the uncertainty about when, if ever, he might undertake the ISOP.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Parole Board had failed to take into account relevant considerations that should have been considered when making its decisions on the applicant's parole applications. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Board had erred in not adequately considering the risk to the community if the applicant did not complete the ISOP until a later date, and the potential benefits of an equivalent program available in the community. The applicant argued that the Board should have imposed conditions such as electronic monitoring or a curfew to mitigate the risk he posed to the community, but the Board had concluded that no such conditions could sufficiently reduce the risk.

The court found that the Parole Board had indeed failed to take into account relevant considerations in making its decisions. The Board did not address the possibility that the applicant might never participate in the ISOP due to the waitlist and uncertain scheduling. Additionally, the Board did not consider the benefits of an equivalent program available in the community, which might have been more beneficial in terms of reducing community risk than an ISOP in custody at a future date. As a result, the court set aside the decisions of the Board and ordered the Board to reconsider the applicant's parole application with appropriate expedition.

In summary, the court's decision was that the Parole Board's decisions to refuse the applicant parole were flawed because they did not adequately consider the relevant risk factors and the availability of an alternative treatment program in the community. The Board's failure to address these considerations constituted a ground for judicial review, leading to the setting aside of the decisions and the ordering of reconsideration.