Petrie v Qld Community Corrections Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Petrie v Qld Community Corrections Board [2006] QCA 474

PARTIES:

GAVIN JOHN PETRIE
(applicant/respondent)
v
QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7179 of 2006
SC No 4393 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 November 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Holmes JA and Chesterman J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on an indemnity basis

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GENERALLY –  where respondent sought judicial review of decision refusing parole – where learned primary judge referred matter back to appellant for reconsideration – where appellant appealed decision of primary judge but subsequently granted parole to respondent – whether declaratory relief should be granted

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 167(1)
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 227

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11, cited
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department;ex parteSalem [1999] 1 AC 450, cited

COUNSEL:

J A Logan SC, with J M Horton, for the appellant
M O Plunkett, with J Fenton, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Howden Saggers Lawyers for the respondent

1. THE COURT: The respondent pleaded guilty on 2 August 2004 to the offence of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under 16 years of age. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment. The sentencing Judge recommended eligibility for post-prison community based release, now called parole, on 26 November 2005, and that the respondent undergo the Sex Offenders’ Treatment Program.

1. The respondent applied for parole on 11 October 2005.  On 1 February 2006, the appellant advised the respondent of its inclination to refuse parole, on the basis the respondent had not yet completed the Sex Offenders’ Treatment Program (a place had not by then become available), and because of certain incidents involving the respondent which had occurred at the correctional centre. Having invited and received further submissions from the respondent, on 28 April 2006 the appellant confirmed that decision.

1. On 12 July 2006, the respondent commenced the relevant program, and has since completed it.

1. The respondent applied for judicial review of the appellant’s decision. 

1. In its letter of 28 April 2006, the appellant said (among other things):

“At the meeting of 24 March 2006, the Board had before it the outcome of your assessment for a sex offenders’ program with the recommendation that you participate in the Medium Intensity Sexual Offending Program and that you had been placed on the priority allocation list for the program.  The Board therefore considered that you would shortly have the opportunity to participate in this program and that, in the interests of public safety, such participation would…