Sambo v. Queesland Parole Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sambo v Qld Parole Board [2007] QSC 336

PARTIES:

ANDERSON JOHN SAMBO
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS5065/07

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 2007

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Further time for the making of the application pursuant to s. 26 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 is allowed.

Application dismissed.

Further submissions sought as to costs orders.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE ON LICENCE  AND REMISSIONS – QUEENSLAND - where an application made to review a decision of the respondent  to refuse the applicant’s application for a post-prison community based release order – where the applicant had not addressed his offending behaviour fully in circumstances where the board recommended that he fully participate in a high intensity sex offender program.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – whether  the respondent’s failure to explicitly refer to psychological and psychiatric tests results  had been a failure to observe the requirements of natural justice.

Judicial Review Act 1991, s26

Mott v Queensland Community Corrections Board [1995] 2 Qd R 261, applied
SB v Queensland Community Corrections Board [2005] QSC 155, followed
York v General Medical Assessment Tribunal [2003] 2 Qd R 104, considered

COUNSEL:

J Fenton for the applicant
S A McLeod for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Volk Lawyers for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the respondent

1. Douglas J:  This is an application to review a decision of the respondent, the Queensland Parole Board, to refuse the applicant’s application for a post-prison community based release order. 

Background

1. The applicant was sentenced on 24 November 1999 to nine years imprisonment for offences of rape, deprivation of liberty, assault occasioning bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed.  On 24 May 2000, the Court of Appeal refused his application for leave to appeal against that sentence.  On 8 September 2006 he applied for a post-prison community based release order and was advised by the respondent on 28 November 2006 that it had formed the initial view that he would be an unacceptable risk to the community on a parole order and was minded to refuse his application.  That letter then went on to say:

“However, the Board’s primary obligation is the protection of the community and the Board was aware that you have still to participate in the High Intensity Sex Offender program (HISOP) for which you are waitlisted. The Assessment Unit Report dated 26 October 2006 informed the Board that you had partially completed the Medium Intensity Sex Offender Program but were removed from that program as it did not meet your criminogenic needs.  The Board therefore considers that you have not yet fully addressed your offending behaviour and recommends that you fully participate in HIVOP (sic) and then place before the Board a release and relapse prevention plan which will minimise your risk factors that led to your offences when…