Queensland Judgments


Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Pollentine v Parole Board Queensland  
Unreported Citation: [2018] QSC 243

The applicant contended that he had been denied procedural fairness where the respondent refused to hold an oral hearing.  Justice Bond found that the reasoning in Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2015] 1 Qd R 408 does not apply under the amended statutory framework.  Application dismissed.

Bond J

25 October 2018

In 1984, the applicant was sentenced for serious sexual offences against children and. detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (CLAA). [1], [2].  On 2 May 2017, he applied for conditional release by the Parole Board Queensland (the Board) pursuant to Pt 3A of the CLAA. [3], [4].  On 19 December 2017, the Board decided to refuse his application. [6]. 

The applicant sought judicial review of the decision on the sole ground that the Board denied his request for an oral hearing. [8]. He argued that the Board had failed to comply with rules of natural justice and that the decision should be set aside and his application referred back to the Board for further consideration. [10].

Justice Bond found that the applicant was given, and had availed himself of, the opportunity to make detailed written submissions and that this was sufficient in the particular circumstances of the case. [11].  The application was dismissed.

In determining the matter, his Honour considered the statutory framework and the 2017 amendments to ss 189 and 190 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (CSA). [57]–[68].  The reasons conclude that, following those amendments, the approach of Jackson J in Maycock v Queensland Parole Board [2015] 1 Qd R 408 is no longer correct. [66]. The approach taken in Cutts v The Board of the Queensland Regional Parole Board [2010] QCA 60 is once again correct. The CSA should be construed as permitting the applicant to appear before the Board only with the Board’s leave. His Honour concluded “this is a compelling factor in favour of concluding that there was no breach of the rules of procedural fairness in the present circumstances and confirms the view I would have reached otherwise.” [67].

K Gover