Renwick v Parole Board Queensland - [2018] QSC 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 169

PARTIES:

STEPHEN DALE RENWICK

(Applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

BS No 7567 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for a statutory order of review

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 July 2018

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDER:

1. The application is allowed.

2. Pursuant to s 30(2)(b) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 direct that, for the purposes of the respondent’s fresh consideration of the applicant’s application for parole, the respondent be constituted by members who did not constitute the parole board when it made its decision dated 16 February 2018.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where the applicant is serving a period of imprisonment for the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter, and the victim’s body has not been located – where the parole board considered and refused his application for parole, because it was not satisfied the applicant had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location, on the basis of adverse credit findings against the applicant – where the parole board subsequently repealed its decision, on the basis that it failed to take into account certain material it was required to – where the parole board proposes that the fresh consideration of the application be conducted by the parole board constituted by the same members who made the original decision, without any further oral hearing – whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, in the form of an appearance of prejudgment

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 198A, 231, 232, 233

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), ss 21, 30

Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507

COUNSEL:

J Fenton for the Applicant

J M Horton QC and M J Woodford for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Applicant

Crown Law for the Respondent

In June 2016 Mr Renwick was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with the date for his eligibility for parole being 20 January 2018. Mr Renwick and another person had taken the body of a man, killed by others on or about 16 April 2012, in a car in order to dispose of it. The body has never been recovered.[1]
[1] See R v Lincoln; R v Kister; R v Renwick [2017] QCA 37 at [30]-[41] for a summary of the factual circumstances of Mr Renwick’s offending (his application for leave to appeal against his sentence was…

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: [2018] QSC 169
Decision Date: 2 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Renwick v Parole Board Queensland involves the applicant, Renwick, who is serving a term for accessory after the fact to manslaughter, with the victim's body yet to be found. Renwick applied for parole, which was denied by the Parole Board Queensland due to a perceived lack of cooperation in locating the victim's remains, leading to adverse credit findings against him. Following this, the parole board rescinded its decision, citing an oversight in considering certain material. The board now proposes to have the application reconsidered by the same members who made the initial decision, without further oral hearings. Renwick contends that this arrangement creates a reasonable apprehension of bias, suggesting the board appears predisposed against him.

The central legal issues in this case revolve around whether the proposed composition of the parole board for the fresh consideration of the application would result in a reasonable apprehension of bias. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the appearance of prejudgment would be such that the board's impartiality could be reasonably doubted. The consideration of whether procedural fairness was adhered to was paramount, particularly in light of the earlier decision's annulment and the proposed unchanged composition of the board.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the requirement for procedural fairness in administrative law and the principles surrounding bias and the appearance of bias. The court found that the risk of bias was not merely hypothetical but a real possibility, given the earlier decision's annulment and the unchanged composition of the parole board. The court concluded that the appearance of prejudgment was significant enough to warrant a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the court determined that the parole board for the fresh consideration of Renwick's application must include members who did not participate in the original decision. This was deemed necessary to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the parole process.

The final orders of the court mandated that the parole board conducting the fresh consideration of Renwick's parole application consist of members who did not comprise the board during the original decision-making process. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to cover Renwick's costs associated with the application for judicial review. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the avoidance of any semblance of bias in administrative law proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is allowed.

2. Pursuant to s 30(2)(b) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 direct that, for the purposes of the respondent’s fresh consideration of the applicant’s application for parole, the respondent be constituted by members who did not constitute the parole board when it made its decision dated 16 February 2018.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application.

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:	Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 169
PARTIES:	STEPHEN DALE RENWICK (Applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (Respondent)
FILE NO:	BS No 7567 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for a statutory order of review
DELIVERED ON:	2 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 July 2018
JUDGE:	Bowskill J
ORDER:	1. The application is allowed. 2. Pursuant to s 30(2)(b) of the *Judicial Review Act* 1991 direct that, for the purposes of the respondent’s fresh consideration of the applicant’s application for parole, the respondent be constituted by members who did not constitute the parole board when it made its decision dated 16 February 2018. 3. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – BIAS – APPREHENSION OF BIAS – where the applicant is serving a period of imprisonment for the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter, and the victim’s body has not been located – where the parole board considered and refused his application for parole, because it was not satisfied the applicant had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location, on the basis of adverse credit findings against the applicant – where the parole board subsequently repealed its decision, on the basis that it failed to take into account certain material it was required to – where the parole board proposes that the fresh consideration of the application be conducted by the parole board constituted by the same members who made the original decision, without any further oral hearing – whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, in the form of an appearance of prejudgment Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 198A, 231, 232, 233 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), ss 21, 30 Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507
COUNSEL:	J Fenton for the Applicant J M Horton QC and M J Woodford for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the Applicant Crown Law for the Respondent