SB v Queensland Community Corrections Board - [2005] QSC 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SB v Qld Community Corrections Board [2005] QSC 155

PARTIES:

SB
(applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS347/05

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2005

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – ERROR OF LAW – where applicant seeking review of decision of respondent to not grant him parole – where applicant maintaining innocence – where maintenance of innocence prevented applicant from being able to complete Sexual Offender’s Treatment Program – where completion of the program would have been a factor in the applicant’s favour – whether there was an error of law in the respondent’s decision to refuse to recommend the applicant for parole

Batts v Department of Corrective Services; Fogarty v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 206, distinguished
Medical Board of Queensland v Thurling [2003] QCA 518, applied
Mott v Queensland Community Corrections Board [1995] 2 Qd R 261, followed
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hepworth and Ors [1997] EWHC Admin 324 (25 March 1997), applied
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Lillycrop and Ors (QBD (Crown Office List), The Times 13 December 1996, CO/2292/96, 27 November 1996, considered
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zulfikar (1995) The Times 26 July 1995, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J A Logan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent

Douglas J: SB, the applicant, was convicted on 10 December 1998 of three counts of carnal knowledge by anal intercourse with a child under 12 years, one count of carnal knowledge by anal intercourse with circumstances of aggravation and one count of maintaining an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with a child under the age of 16 years with circumstances of aggravation. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. On 10 August 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction and refused his application for leave to appeal against sentence. During the trial there was a change in evidence given by a 10 year old boy, the brother of the 9 year old complainant, which led to his evidence being inconsistent with that of the complainant in important respects. That caused the trial judge to express concern about the state of the Crown case and to raise the issue whether the prosecution should proceed. Although his Honour’s concerns were canvassed on the appeal they did not result in the verdict being varied.

The applicant continues to maintain his innocence and for that reason has not taken part in the Sexual Offenders’ Treatment Programme or the Cognitive Skills Programme available to him…

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 SB v Queensland Community Corrections Board 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: [2005] QSC 155
Decision Date: 10 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SB, sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Community Corrections Board not to grant him parole. SB maintained his innocence throughout the process and argued that this stance prevented him from completing a Sexual Offender’s Treatment Program, which would have been a factor in his favour. The respondent's refusal to recommend parole hinged on SB's inability to complete this program due to his insistence on innocence. The court was tasked with determining whether there was an error of law in the Board's decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the Board's decision to not recommend parole due to SB's refusal to participate in the treatment program, owing to his claim of innocence, constituted an error of law. The court needed to assess whether the Board had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory criteria in making its decision. It was also necessary to determine if the Board had adequately considered SB's claim of innocence and the implications of this stance on the parole decision.

The court found that the Board had not erred in law. It was held that the Board's decision was consistent with the statutory framework, which required SB to engage in the treatment program as a condition for parole. The court determined that SB's refusal to participate in the program, based on his claim of innocence, was a legitimate reason for the Board to deny the parole recommendation. The court concluded that the Board had properly exercised its discretion under the relevant legislation and had not overlooked any significant aspect of SB's case.

The application was dismissed, and the decision of the Queensland Community Corrections Board not to recommend parole was upheld. The court confirmed that the Board's decision was not flawed and that there was no basis for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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:	SB v Qld Community Corrections Board [2005] QSC 155
PARTIES:	SB (applicant) v QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS347/05
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2005
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – GROUNDS FOR REVIEW OF DECISION – ERROR OF LAW – where applicant seeking review of decision of respondent to not grant him parole – where applicant maintaining innocence – where maintenance of innocence prevented applicant from being able to complete Sexual Offender’s Treatment Program – where completion of the program would have been a factor in the applicant’s favour – whether there was an error of law in the respondent’s decision to refuse to recommend the applicant for parole Batts v Department of Corrective Services; Fogarty v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 206, distinguished Medical Board of Queensland v Thurling [2003] QCA 518, applied Mott v Queensland Community Corrections Board [1995] 2 Qd R 261, followed R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Hepworth and Ors [1997] EWHC Admin 324 (25 March 1997), applied R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Lillycrop and Ors (QBD (Crown Office List), The Times 13 December 1996, CO/2292/96, 27 November 1996, considered R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zulfikar (1995) The Times 26 July 1995, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf J A Logan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent