Rielly v Qld Parole Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rielly v Qld Parole Board [2017] QSC 244

PARTIES:

RIELLY, Mervyn James
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS1382 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 July 2017

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicant was refused parole by the respondent – where the respondent had regard to various expert psychological evidence – where the respondent expressly stated that any expert evidence based on incorrect facts was not taken into account – where the respondent sought further clarification of expert opinion – where the respondent considered expert opinion reasonably open notwithstanding factual error – whether decision to refuse parole was an improper exercise of power – whether decision to refuse parole took irrelevant considerations into account

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), ss 193, 227

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40

McGrane v Queensland State Parole Board [2012] QSC 350

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

M Woodford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Crown Law for the respondent

1. This is an application for a statutory order of review pursuant to s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The applicant seeks a review of the decision made by the Queensland Parole Board (“the Board”) on 11 November 2016 to refuse to grant the application of Mr Rielly for a parole order.

Background

1. Mr Rielly is serving life imprisonment at Wolston Correction Centre.  He became eligible for parole in 1988 and has made approximately 20 unsuccessful applications for parole. 

1. On 18 December 2015 the respondent made the decision to refuse his application for parole.  Subsequently an application for a statutory order of review was filed on his behalf seeking review of that decision.  The respondent subsequently rescinded its decision of 18 December 2015 and agreed to reconsider his application.

1. On 11 November 2016 the respondent made a new decision to refuse his application for parole.

Person aggrieved

1. There is no issue that the applicant, Mr Rielly, is aggrieved by the decision to refuse his parole. 

Grounds of review

1. The applicant seeks a review of the decision made on 11 November 2016 on the basis that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (“the Act”) in that the respondent took an irrelevant consideration into account within the meaning of s 20(2)(e) and s 23(a) of the Judicial Review Act.  The particulars of the complaint are, in a summary form, that:[1]

   [1]Application at [1(c)]-[1(l)].

   (a)      The respondent took into account and relied upon psychiatric reports and opinions from Dr Kar and Dr Sundin…