Silk v Parole Board Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Silk v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 30

PARTIES:

CHRIS SILK
(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 16066 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for a statutory order of review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2025

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1. The whole of the decision of the respondent made on 4 September 2024 in respect of the applicant’s application for a parole order is set aside with effect from 4 September 2024, pursuant to section 30(1)(a) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (the “JRA”).

2. The applicant’s application for a parole order is referred to the respondent for further consideration and for a decision according to law, pursuant to section 30(1)(b) of the Act.

3.   The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis.

The court directs that:

4. The respondent is to make a decision on the applicant’s application for a parole order within 28 days from the date of this order, pursuant to s 30(1)(d) of the Act.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW –– IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – FAILURE TO CONSIDER – where the applicant is serving a sentence of five years imprisonment – where the applicant filed an application for a statutory order of review of the Board’s decision to refuse to make a parole order – where the Board explained its decision to refuse the parole application in a statement of reasons – where the statement of reasons contained inconsistencies and proceeds on a factually inaccurate understanding of the applicant’s completion and engagement with relevant intervention programs – where the Board recommended a substance intervention course to address risk factors relating to his offending – where the course was not available at the relevant correctional centre – whether the Board is bound by the recommendation of the parole eligibility date fixed by the court.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14B
Corrective Services Act2006 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 180, s 192, s 193, s 194, s 200, s 216, s 217
Corrective Services Bill 2006 (Qld)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 411, s 419
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 32, s 33

Boyy v Parole Board Queensland [2018] QSC 175 cited
Burridge v Parole Board Queensland [2021] QSC 244 cited
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 cited
Flegg v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2014] QCA 42 applied
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 cited
R v Ungvari [2010] QCA 134 cited
R v Watson [2021] QCA 225 cited
R v WBV [2023] QCA 79 cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared in person
C Templeton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Silk 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
[2025] QSC 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Silk applied for judicial review of a decision made by the Parole Board of Queensland to refuse his application for parole. The Board had issued a decision letter on 4 September 2024, which was served on Silk on 11 October 2024. Silk requested a statement of reasons from the Board on 15 October 2024, but the Board did not provide it within the required timeframe. Silk lodged his application for judicial review on 24 November 2024, identifying a single ground for review. The Board eventually provided a statement of reasons on 3 December 2024, but it contained inconsistencies and errors, such as an incorrect date of decision. The Board also recommended a substance intervention course that was not available at the correctional centre where Silk was held. The court considered four grounds of review, including taking irrelevant considerations into account, failing to take relevant considerations into account, exercising a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the case, and exercising a power in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power. The court found that the Board had failed to consider relevant matters and had taken irrelevant matters into account. The court also found that the Board had exercised its power in a manner that was unreasonable. The court set aside the decision of the Board, referred Silk’s application for parole to the Board for further consideration and for a decision according to law, and ordered the Board to pay Silk’s costs of the proceeding. The court also directed the Board to make a decision on Silk’s application for parole within 28 days from the date of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The whole of the decision of the respondent made on 4 September 2024 in respect of the applicant’s application for a parole order is set aside with effect from 4 September 2024, pursuant to section 30(1)(a) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (the “JRA”).

2. The applicant’s application for a parole order is referred to the respondent for further consideration and for a decision according to law, pursuant to section 30(1)(b) of the Act.

3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis.

The court directs that:

4. The respondent is to make a decision on the applicant’s application for a parole order within 28 days from the date of this order, pursuant to s 30(1)(d) of the Act.

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

On 11 October 2024, the Board wrote to Mr Silk informing him of the decision it had made on 4 September 2024 (the decision letter). The Board advised Mr Silk that it would consent to Mr Silk lodging a new application for parole from 4 March 2025, being six months after the date of the Board’s decision.. That date would be about 13 months after his court-ordered parole eligibility date. On 15 October 2024, Mr Silk made a written request for a statement of reasons from the Board. The request was made under s 32 of the JRA. The Board was obliged to provide the statement of reasons as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 28 days after receiving the request.[4] The Board failed to comply with this statutory obligation. [4]JRA , s 33(1). On 24 November 2024, Mr Silk filed an application for a statutory order of review of the Board’s decision to refuse to make a parole order. The applicant sought the review under s 20 of the JRA. The application identified a single ground for review – a failure to take a relevant consideration into account. The relevant consideration was that a course referred to in the decision letter was not provided at the prison where Mr Silk was held. On 3 December 2024, the Board provided a statement of reasons. Erroneously, the title of the statement of reasons referred to a decision of the Board to refuse to grant parole on 1 August 2024. At the hearing, Mr Silk relied upon an outline of argument dated 8 February 2025. It raised four grounds of review, namely taking an irrelevant consideration into account, failing to take a relevant consideration into account, exercising a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the case, and exercising a power in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power.[5] [5]The hearing proceeded on the basis that all four grounds were raised. This was because the Board’s delay in providing its statement of reasons had left the applicant to file his application for a statutory order of review without the benefit of a statement of reasons. The Board did not object to this course.Relevant and irrelevant consideration grounds The applicant submitted that the statement of reasons included or referred to matters that were factually untrue and contradicted factual findings the Board itself had made, according to other parts of the statement of reasons. The applicant contended that these errors led the Board either to consider irrelevant matters (which were factually untrue) or to fail to consider relevant matters (which the Board had found were true). For that reason, it is convenient to consider those two grounds jointly. Whether Mr Silk had completed relevant courses and programs The statement of reasons recorded that the Board had made its decision on findings of fact that included the following: (a)The applicant had completed the short substance intervention (SSI) on 10 November 2023. The applicant had been waitlisted for the Build don’t break – Resilience course (the Resilience course).[6](b)On 16 May 2024, during the parole suitability assessment interview, Mr Silk had identified community support available to him from opioid substitution therapy (OST) which would continue if he were granted a parole order. (c)Mr Silk had outstanding treatment needs to address risk factors linked to his offending, specifically relating to substance abuse. (d)Mr Silk’s significant criminal history was linked to his substance abuse. (e)Mr Silk had maintained good and consistent employment in a trusted position while in custody, including his current position as a cook, which displayed some motivation to positively utilise his time in custody. (f)Mr Silk’s behaviour in custody had been consistently good and he had no negative incidents during his current term of imprisonment. [6]The material before the Board showed the applicant had been waitlisted for the Resilience course since 8 September 2023.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

At the hearing, Mr Silk relied upon an outline of argument dated 8 February 2025. It raised four grounds of review, namely taking an irrelevant consideration into account, failing to take a relevant consideration into account, exercising a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the case, and exercising a power in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable person could so exercise the power.[5] [5]The hearing proceeded on the basis that all four grounds were raised. This was because the Board’s delay in providing its statement of reasons had left the applicant to file his application for a statutory order of review without the benefit of a statement of reasons. The Board did not object to this course.Relevant and irrelevant consideration grounds The applicant submitted that the statement of reasons included or referred to matters that were factually untrue and contradicted factual findings the Board itself had made, according to other parts of the statement of reasons. The applicant contended that these errors led the Board either to consider irrelevant matters (which were factually untrue) or to fail to consider relevant matters (which the Board had found were true). For that reason, it is convenient to consider those two grounds jointly. Whether Mr Silk had completed relevant courses and programs The statement of reasons recorded that the Board had made its decision on findings of fact that included the following: (a)The applicant had completed the short substance intervention (SSI) on 10 November 2023. The applicant had been waitlisted for the Build don’t break – Resilience course (the Resilience course).[6](b)On 16 May 2024, during the parole suitability assessment interview, Mr Silk had identified community support available to him from opioid substitution therapy (OST) which would continue if he were granted a parole order. (c)Mr Silk had outstanding treatment needs to address risk factors linked to his offending, specifically relating to substance abuse. (d)Mr Silk’s significant criminal history was linked to his substance abuse. (e)Mr Silk had maintained good and consistent employment in a trusted position while in custody, including his current position as a cook, which displayed some motivation to positively utilise his time in custody. (f)Mr Silk’s behaviour in custody had been consistently good and he had no negative incidents during his current term of imprisonment. [6]The material before the Board showed the applicant had been waitlisted for the Resilience course since 8 September 2023. Notwithstanding the above facts, the statement of reasons recorded the following: “[49] The Board was of the view that as you had not yet completed any intervention programs that may have been available to you, you remained an untreated drug offender. Given your history of substance abuse and its direct link with you offending behaviour as reported by you during the PSA interview, the Board encouraged you to address your outstanding treatment needs. The Board recommended you complete a substance abuse program. [50] The Board was also of the view that taking into account your history of offending and outstanding treatment needs, your risk to the community remained unacceptable while you had not addressed your outstanding treatment needs. The Board was of the view that your risk was likely to be less if you were to complete a substance abuse program. … [83] The board remained of the view that the risk you posed to the community was unacceptable should you be released without having successfully completed a higher intensity substance abuse program, preferable in a group based custodial setting. [84] The Board noted that engagement in a substance abuse program would provide you with guidance and support in the development of your RRP and release plans to help insure [sic] that you did not return to substance use and linked offending upon release to the community. The Board encourage you to take any opportunity to engage is programs and interventions while in custody, and particularly programs to assist with your substance abuse issues.”