Renwick v Parole Board Queensland - [2019] QSC 37

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] QSC 37

PARTIES:

STEPHEN DALE RENWICK

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No BS13501/18

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2019

JUDGE:

Flanagan J

ORDER:

1. The applicant’s application for a statutory order of review filed 6 December 2018 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY ORDER OF REVIEW – REFUSAL TO GRANT PAROLE ORDER – where the applicant was convicted of the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a parole eligibility date – where the victim’s body or remains have never been found – where, before being sentenced, the applicant informed police of the location of the victim’s remains – where a new law came into effect while the applicant was in prison requiring the respondent to refuse parole unless it was satisfied the applicant had satisfactorily cooperated in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location – where, subsequent to that new law coming into force, the applicant revealed for the first time that the victim’s body had been cremated – where the respondent refused to grant parole – whether the respondent erred in construing the new law’s definition of “victim’s location” – whether the respondent failed to properly consider the applicant’s cooperation both before and after being sentenced

COUNSEL:

J Fenton for the applicant

J M Horton QC, with M J Woodford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant

G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent

The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the respondent to refuse to issue a parole order to the applicant on 8 November 2018. The respondent refused parole pursuant to s 193A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), which has sometimes been referred to as the “No Body, No Parole” law.
While the application for a statutory order of review identifies 14 grounds, in oral submissions counsel for the applicant relied on only two grounds: first, that the respondent misconstrued the definition of “victim’s location” in s 193A(8); and secondly, that the respondent failed to take into account the applicant’s cooperation after the enactment of s 193A.
The applicant has, in my view, failed to establish that the respondent, in refusing to grant a parole order, committed any reviewable error.
Background
On 27 June 2012 police commenced an investigation in relation to the suspected unlawful killing of Timothy Pullen following his disappearance from a unit in Mackay in April 2012.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40.
As at April 2012 the applicant and a person called Luke Kister worked together at a nightclub in Mackay.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 43, paragraph 34.
On 12 July 2012…

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 Renwick 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: [2019] QSC 37
Decision Date: 1 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Renwick v Parole Board Queensland involved the applicant, who had been convicted of accessory after the fact to manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment, challenging the refusal of the Parole Board of Queensland to grant him parole. The dispute centred on the Board’s application of a new legislative requirement that it must be satisfied the applicant had cooperated in the investigation of the offence before granting parole. This requirement came into effect while the applicant was in prison. The applicant had previously informed the police about the location of the victim's remains but had not assisted in locating them. After the new legislation came into force, the applicant revealed that the victim’s body had been cremated. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the Parole Board erred in its interpretation of the statutory requirement and whether it had properly considered the applicant's cooperation.

The court considered the key legal issues to be whether the Parole Board had misinterpreted the statutory definition of “victim’s location” and whether it had failed to properly assess the applicant's cooperation both before and after his sentencing. The court held that the Board was entitled to interpret the statutory requirement as it did, given the clear wording of the legislation and its purpose to ensure cooperation in locating the victim's remains. Furthermore, the court found that the Board had adequately considered the applicant's cooperation, noting that the applicant had not taken any meaningful steps to assist in locating the remains before or after his sentencing. The applicant's belated revelation that the body had been cremated did not constitute satisfactory cooperation under the legislation.

In dismissing the application, the court found that the Parole Board had not erred in its decision-making process and had correctly applied the statutory requirement. Consequently, the applicant's application for a statutory order of review was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application for a statutory order of review filed 6 December 2018 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

The applicant has, in my view, failed to establish that the respondent, in refusing to grant a parole order, committed any reviewable error.Background On 27 June 2012 police commenced an investigation in relation to the suspected unlawful killing of Timothy Pullen following his disappearance from a unit in Mackay in April 2012.[1][1] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40. As at April 2012 the applicant and a person called Luke Kister worked together at a nightclub in Mackay.[2] [2] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 43, paragraph 34. On 12 July 2012 the applicant declined to provide a statement or to be interviewed in relation to the disappearance of Mr Pullen.[3] Subsequently on 23 July 2013 the applicant was charged with the offence of accessory after the fact to murder and declined to participate in an interview.[4] On 4 March 2015 the applicant was additionally charged with the offence of murder and again declined to participate in an interview.[5][3] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40.[4] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40.[5] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40. These charges were subsequently reduced to one count of accessory after the fact to manslaughter which related to the unlawful killing of Mr Pullen by two other persons on or about 16 April 2012. On 31 May 2016, when arraigned, the applicant pleaded guilty to this count.[6] The sentencing proceedings were adjourned ostensibly for the purpose of enabling the applicant and Mr Kister to direct police to the location of the remains of Mr Pullen.[7][6] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40.[7] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40. Two days prior to being sentenced the applicant and his legal representative met with police in order to take them to the remains of Mr Pullen.[8] The applicant identified a remote area of bushland located at Newlands near Collinsville.[9] A search area was established and a preliminary search was conducted by police that day: the remains of Mr Pullen were not found.[10][8] Affidavit of Nicholas Joseph Dore, filed 6 December 2018, NJD-1, page 630.[9] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40.[10] Affidavit of Taylor Mobbs, filed 18 January 2019, TM-1, page 13, paragraph 40. On 3 June 2016 McMeekin J sentenced the applicant to five years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 20 January 2018.[11] In his sentencing remarks, his Honour observed:[12]“… At some point they took the body of Mr Pullen, which was located in Mr Kister’s car; drove for some three hours out of Mackay; on their account, left the roadway; and dumped the body in the bush …That the prisoners were involved at a time not long after Mr Pullen’s death seems likely. They were observed to be up and about in the early hours of that morning when it is known that Mr Pullen was taken from the unit. There was an attempted hire of an excavator; whatever the plan was, it seems to have been abandoned, as the excavator was returned unused … The car was driven out by Mr Renwick, Mr Kister was a passenger … Mr Kister is not familiar with the area, Mr Renwick was; the body was dumped … The sentence proceeds on the basis that the prisoners were involved in the handling of the body, and through their actions potentially valuable evidence was lost. The killers of Mr Pullen have never been identified. It seems very likely that forensic evidence would have been available had the body been available to police. The actions of the prisoners have deprived the prosecution, and indeed the community, of the chance to bring these killers to justice …”[11] Transcript of proceedings before McMeekin J on 3 June 2016.[12] Transcript of proceedings before McMeekin J on 3 June 2016, pages 2-3.

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:	Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] QSC 37
PARTIES:	STEPHEN DALE RENWICK (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	No BS13501/18
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2019
JUDGE:	Flanagan J
ORDER:	1. The applicant’s application for a statutory order of review filed 6 December 2018 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY ORDER OF REVIEW – REFUSAL TO GRANT PAROLE ORDER – where the applicant was convicted of the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a parole eligibility date – where the victim’s body or remains have never been found – where, before being sentenced, the applicant informed police of the location of the victim’s remains – where a new law came into effect while the applicant was in prison requiring the respondent to refuse parole unless it was satisfied the applicant had satisfactorily cooperated in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location – where, subsequent to that new law coming into force, the applicant revealed for the first time that the victim’s body had been cremated – where the respondent refused to grant parole – whether the respondent erred in construing the new law’s definition of “victim’s location” – whether the respondent failed to properly consider the applicant’s cooperation both before and after being sentenced
COUNSEL:	J Fenton for the applicant J M Horton QC, with M J Woodford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant G R Cooper, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent