Pollentine v Parole Board Queensland

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pollentine v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 247

PARTIES:

EDWARD POLLENTINE

(applicant)

v

PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 4164 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

31 October 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

Each party must bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – COSTS – where the applicant’s application for judicial review was unsuccessful – where the applicant applies for an order pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) that each party bear their own costs of the review proceeding – whether it is appropriate to order that each party bear their own costs

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 49

Burragubba v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (No 2) [2017] QSC 265, cited

Pollentine v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 243, related

COUNSEL:

D P O’Gorman SC with S T Lane for the applicant

G Beacham QC with B O’Brien for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Prisoner’s Legal Services for the applicant

Crown Law for the respondent

1. In Pollentine v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 243, I dismissed an application for judicial review of a Parole Board decision refusing a parole order application which had been made by a person who was detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld).

2. The Board had written to the applicant expressing a negative preliminary view in respect of his application, and explaining why.  One of its expressed concerns was as to the applicant’s personal credibility, an issue which affected the reliability of his self-reporting.  The Board wrote that letter so as to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to its concerns.

3. The applicant, by a letter written by his solicitors, availed himself of the opportunity to make detailed written submissions responding to the Board’s various concerns, including on the issue of his credibility.  At the conclusion of their written submissions on that topic, the applicant’s solicitors wrote “Should the Board continue to hold misgivings about [the applicant’s] credibility, we respectfully request an oral hearing is conducted with [the applicant].”

4. The Board proceeded to refuse the application for a parole order and also to deny the request for an oral hearing.  The question which rose for determination was whether in the particular circumstances of the case the failure to accord the applicant an oral hearing operated to deny natural justice to him. 

5. In the course of my judgment I identified the general principles which were relevant to the assessment of a contention that procedural fairness has been denied by a failure to afford an oral hearing to a person affected by an administrative decision.  There was no particular controversy between the parties as to the content of those principles.

6. However, so far as counsel could ascertain, the case was the first time in which a Queensland court had ruled on the…