Renwick v Parole Board Queensland - [2019] QCA 269

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] QCA 269

PARTIES:

STEPHEN DALE RENWICK
(appellant)
v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3434 of 2019
SC No 13501 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 37 (Flanagan J)

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2019

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS – where the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date – where the respondent Parole Board refused the appellant’s parole application because it was not satisfied that the appellant had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation to identify both the location and place of the victim’s remains, pursuant to s 193A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 – where the appellant applied for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application – where the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application – whether the primary judge erred in reading the definition of “victim’s location” in s 193A(8) as entailing two discrete requirements, rather than synonymous and interchangeable terms – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not fail to properly consider the appellant’s cooperation after sentence

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 193A
Corrective Services(No Body, No Parole) Amendment Act 2017 (Qld), s 4
Criminal Code (Qld), s 303, s 310

Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 273; [2000] QCA 348, applied
Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) (2017) 256 FCR 90; (2017) 350 ALR 216; [2017] FCAFC 111, considered
Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] QSC 37, considered
Watson v Marshall (1971) 124 CLR 621; [1971] HCA 33, considered

COUNSEL:

J W Fenton with J Feely for the appellant
J M Horton QC, with M J Woodford, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Crown Law for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: In mid-2016, the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter (the unlawful killing of Timothy Pullen) and was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date of 20 January 2018. The respondent Parole Board of Queensland (“the Board”) refused his application for parole by a decision made on 8 November 2018, on the basis that it was not satisfied (as s 193A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 requires) that he had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the killing to identify Mr Pullen’s location. His application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed, and he now appeals that judgment.
The legislation
Section…

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] QCA 269
Decision Date: 26 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Renwick v Parole Board Queensland involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter and was sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date. The appellant subsequently applied for parole, which was refused by the Parole Board on the basis that they were not satisfied the appellant had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation to identify both the location and place of the victim’s remains. The appellant then applied for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his parole application, which was dismissed by the primary judge. The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in reading the definition of “victim’s location” in s 193A(8) as entailing two discrete requirements, rather than synonymous and interchangeable terms, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not fail to properly consider the appellant’s cooperation after sentence.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in reading the definition of “victim’s location” as entailing two discrete requirements, rather than synonymous and interchangeable terms. The court held that the definition of “victim’s location” in s 193A(8) required the appellant to provide information on both the location and the place of the victim’s remains, and that these were not interchangeable terms. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in finding that the respondent did not fail to properly consider the appellant’s cooperation after sentence. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the respondent’s decision was unreasonable or failed to take into account relevant considerations.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. The court held that the primary judge’s decision was correct and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the respondent’s decision was flawed. The court further held that the appellant had not shown that the primary judge had erred in his interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in his assessment of the evidence before him. The court emphasised the importance of the Parole Board’s discretion in considering parole applications and the need for applicants to cooperate fully with the investigation into the circumstances of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

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 [2019] QCA 269
PARTIES:	STEPHEN DALE RENWICK (appellant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3434 of 2019 SC No 13501 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 37 (Flanagan J)
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 August 2019
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS – where the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date – where the respondent Parole Board refused the appellant’s parole application because it was not satisfied that the appellant had cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation to identify both the location and place of the victim’s remains, pursuant to s 193A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 – where the appellant applied for a statutory order of review of the respondent’s decision to refuse his application – where the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application – whether the primary judge erred in reading the definition of “victim’s location” in s 193A(8) as entailing two discrete requirements, rather than synonymous and interchangeable terms – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not fail to properly consider the appellant’s cooperation after sentence Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 193A Corrective Services(No Body, No Parole) Amendment Act 2017 (Qld), s 4 Criminal Code (Qld), s 303, s 310 Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 273; [2000] QCA 348, applied Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) (2017) 256 FCR 90; (2017) 350 ALR 216; [2017] FCAFC 111, considered Renwick v Parole Board Queensland [2019] QSC 37, considered Watson v Marshall (1971) 124 CLR 621; [1971] HCA 33, considered
COUNSEL:	J W Fenton with J Feely for the appellant J M Horton QC, with M J Woodford, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Crown Law for the respondent