Pilley v Parole Board Queensland - [2022] QSC 116

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pilley v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 116

PARTIES:

SHANE MATHEW PILLEY

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3673/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for a Statutory Order of Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 June 2022

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The application filed 29 March 2022 is allowed.

2.   The decision of the respondent made on 11 April 2022 not to review or vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is set aside.

3.   The applicant’s request that the respondent review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is referred to the respondent for further consideration and to be dealt with by the respondent forthwith according to law.

4.   The respondent is to reconsider the applicant’s request that it review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 within 14 days of today’s date.

5.   Liberty to apply on short notice.

6.   The respondent is to pay the applicant’s cost of filing the application.

7.   Otherwise, each party is to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - UNREASONABLENESS - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - whether the Board’s decision was so unreasonable, in the circumstances, that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached that decision.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - where the applicant contends that the decision involved the Board inflexibly applying a policy instead of considering the particular facts and circumstances of his case.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW – DECISION NOT AUTHORISED - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - where the applicant contends that the decision concerned an earlier decision that was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made.

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 3, s 119(1), s 200, s 205(1), s 208(2), s 216, s 218
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(d), s 20(2)(e), s 23(f), s 23(g)
Coates v Commissioner for Railways (1960) 78 WN NSW 377, cited.
Flegg v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 42, followed.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, followed.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197…

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 Pilley 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 116
Decision Date: 8 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pilley v Parole Board Queensland, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Parole Board Queensland, on 11 April 2022. The applicant contended that the decision not to review or vary a prior decision made on 26 October 2021 was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made. The court was tasked with determining whether the decision made by the respondent on 11 April 2022 was unlawful due to being unauthorised by the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision of the respondent on 11 April 2022 was authorised by the relevant enactment. The applicant argued that the decision was not authorised because it did not align with the legislative framework governing the respondent's powers. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions to ascertain the scope of the respondent's authority and whether the decision in question fell within those bounds.

The court found that the decision made by the respondent on 11 April 2022 was indeed not authorised by the relevant enactment. It was determined that the respondent had exceeded its powers by making a decision that was not in accordance with the statutory framework. Consequently, the court set aside the respondent's decision and referred the applicant's request for review and variation of the 26 October 2021 decision back to the respondent for reconsideration. The court mandated that the respondent reconsider the application within 14 days and directed that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of filing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The application filed 29 March 2022 is allowed.

2. The decision of the respondent made on 11 April 2022 not to review or vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is set aside.

3. The applicant’s request that the respondent review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is referred to the respondent for further consideration and to be dealt with by the respondent forthwith according to law.

4. The respondent is to reconsider the applicant’s request that it review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 within 14 days of today’s date.

5. Liberty to apply on short notice.

6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s cost of filing the application.

7. Otherwise, each party is to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

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:	Pilley v Parole Board Queensland [2022] QSC 116
PARTIES:	SHANE MATHEW PILLEY (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3673/22
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for a Statutory Order of Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 June 2022
JUDGE:	Bradley J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1. The application filed 29 March 2022 is allowed. 2. The decision of the respondent made on 11 April 2022 not to review or vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is set aside. 3. The applicant’s request that the respondent review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 is referred to the respondent for further consideration and to be dealt with by the respondent forthwith according to law. 4. The respondent is to reconsider the applicant’s request that it review and vary the decision made on 26 October 2021 within 14 days of today’s date. 5. Liberty to apply on short notice. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s cost of filing the application. 7. Otherwise, each party is to bear their own costs of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - UNREASONABLENESS - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - whether the Board’s decision was so unreasonable, in the circumstances, that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached that decision. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - where the applicant contends that the decision involved the Board inflexibly applying a policy instead of considering the particular facts and circumstances of his case. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW – DECISION NOT AUTHORISED - where the Parole Board Queensland made a decision on 11 April 2022 - where the respondent seeks a review of this decision under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) - where the applicant contends that the decision concerned an earlier decision that was not authorised by the enactment under which it was purported to be made. Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 3, s 119(1), s 200, s 205(1), s 208(2), s 216, s 218 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(d), s 20(2)(e), s 23(f), s 23(g) Coates v Commissioner for Railways (1960) 78 WN NSW 377, cited. Flegg v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 42, followed. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, followed. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, cited. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197…