Williams v Queensland Community Corrections Board

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Qld Community Corrections Brd [2000] QCA 75

PARTIES:

DARRELL FRANCIS WILLIAMS
(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6237 of 1999
SC No 11032 of 1998

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Order to review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2000

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Pincus and Davies JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal allowed.  Set aside decision of respondent made 18 September 1998 and order it reconsider its decision according to law.  Order that respondent pay appellant's costs of this appeal and of proceedings before the primary judge.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE ON LICENCE AND REMISSIONS – QUEENSLAND – where appellant had given extensive and valuable co-operation with the relevant authorities in the apprehension of offenders – whether respondent's reasons for refusing to grant parole disclosed proper consideration to competing public policy considerations – whether respondent failed to give proper weight to the learned sentencing judge's recommendation for eligibility for parole

Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 139(1), s 166(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(i), s 13A, s 157

Bafico [1996] 2 QdR 274, applied
Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1, considered
Bulger v Queensland Community Corrections Board [1994] 2 QdR 239, considered
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, considered
Corrigan [1994] 2 QdR 415, applied
Malvaso (1989) 168 CLR 227, considered

R v Wilkie [1997] QCA 337; CA No 255 of 1997, 30 September 1997, considered

Thompson (1994) 76 ACrimR 75, considered

COUNSEL:

Mr J C Davidson for appellant
Mr M O Plunkett for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Prisoners' Legal Service Inc for appellant
Crown Solicitor for respondent

1. THE COURT:  This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing an application for a statutory order of review of a decision of the Queensland Community Corrections Board not to grant the appellant parole, home detention or release to work.  The notice of appeal filed states a number of grounds but the appeal as argued was, in effect, on two bases.

1. In the first place, the appellant contended, the respondent's reasons for the failure to grant parole disclose a complete lack of consideration of whether, in the public interest, the appellant should be released on parole to encourage others who might be minded to give similar co-operation.  Secondly it was submitted that the respondent failed to take into account, or to give proper weight, to the learned sentencing judge's recommendation for eligibility for parole.  Before discussing those grounds, which are related, something should be said about the circumstances in which the appeal arises.

1. On 14 May 1996 the appellant was sentenced in the District Court to an effective term of 12 years imprisonment less 110 days, that being the period which the learned sentencing judge declared to be imprisonment already served under the sentence.  His Honour then recommended that the appellant be…