Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board
[2011] QSC 287
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board[2011] QSC 287
- Add to List
Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board[2011] QSC 287
Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board[2011] QSC 287
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Originating Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 27 September 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 23 September 2011 |
JUDGE: | McMurdo J |
ORDER: | The Originating Application be dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PAROLE – OTHER MATTERS – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – FAILURE TO MAKE DECISION – where the applicant applied for parole on 8 July 2010 – where the applicant applied for judicial review of the respondent’s failure to make a decision on 15 June 2011 – where the respondent subsequently refused parole on 24 August 2011 – whether the applicant’s Originating Application should be dismissed Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 193 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Kruck v Queensland Regional Parole Board [2009] 1 Qd R 463 |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf S McLeod for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf Crown Law for the respondent |
[1] The applicant is a prisoner serving a sentence of 6½ years, under which he became eligible for parole on 3 January 2011. He first applied for parole on 8 July 2010. The respondent received what is described as “a completed application” from him on 13 December 2010.[1]
[2] By 15 June 2011, the respondent had still not determined his application. On that date, he filed this proceeding, seeking relief under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). His Originating Application came before a judge in the Applications List on 8 July 2011. The applicant was and is unrepresented. The respondent was then represented by a lawyer from Crown Law. His Honour set the case down for hearing in the Civil List on 23 September 2011. He directed that the respondent file and serve its material by 1 August and that the parties file and serve outlines of argument by 22 August.
[3] The respondent filed an affidavit on 2 August 2011. It filed its outline of submissions on 29 August 2011.
[4] But in the meantime, the respondent made a decision upon the application for parole. At a meeting on 24 August 2011, it decided to refuse parole. That was not communicated to the applicant until 8 September. A statement of reasons was provided on 14 September.
[5] It also seems that the respondent did not tell its own lawyers of its decision on 24 August, because the outline of submissions filed on 29 August was upon the basis that the respondent was yet to reach a decision. The outline concluded with this paragraph:
“No final decision in respect to the applicant’s application for parole has been made. The respondent is in the process of determining the said application. Accordingly, the operative decision to challenge, if the respondent was to decline his application, is that decision.”
[6] Nothing filed by the applicant in this case addresses the decision which has now been made. The applicant is still within time to challenge it.[2] But at the hearing, the applicant persisted with the application he filed in June. That application must be dismissed in its entirety for the following reasons.
[7] Paragraph 1 of his application seeks an order “setting aside the no decision made”. Since the judgment in Kruck v Queensland Regional Parole Board,[3] s 193 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) has been amended so that a failure to decide an application for parole within the required time does not result in a deemed refusal of parole. Therefore, there is no decision to be set aside, apart from the one which has now been made on 24 August which is not the subject of these proceedings.
[8] Secondly, the applicant sought an order for his release from prison. He has no present entitlement to be released.
[9] He seeks an order for damages, in the amount of $2,000 per week, “for each and every week of unlawful detainment by Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board”. The amount is quantified on the basis that this represents “lost wages”. His detention has not been by the Board and nor has it been unlawful.
[10] By paragraph 5 of his application, he seeks an order that the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) be amended by the Court. The amendments would provide for certain things to be done by the Board to the end of its deciding applications for parole more expeditiously. At the hearing the applicant seemed unable to understand that such an order was beyond the power of any court.
[11] He also sought an order that a copy of the documents in this case be sent to the Minister for Police “for investigation into breaches of the law and the Act by Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board and or by Queensland Corrective Services”. No such order should be made. There is no indication of any conduct by them which would warrant investigation by the police.
[12] Lastly, he sought an order for costs. But he is not legally represented and the filing fees have been waived in this case.
[13] The burden of work upon the respondent is obviously considerable. The Parliament has recognised this by amending s 193, to provide for longer periods in which such applications must be determined. But I have to say that the extent of the delay in this case is very difficult to understand. I am also concerned by the respondent’s performance as a litigant. The judge who set this case down for hearing in the Civil List should have been told of the likelihood that the matter would be overtaken by a decision, one way or the other, about the applicant’s parole. And when that decision was made on 24 August, the applicant should have been informed immediately. Moreover, the Court should have been informed of that development. Instead, the lawyers for the Board, without instructions that it had finally decided the application for parole, filed the outline of submissions to which I have referred.
[14] It will be ordered that the Originating Application be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.