Morgan v Parole Board Queensland

In this case the administrative decision-maker, the Parole Board of Queensland, made a number of purported decisions in relation to a prisoner’s application for a parole order (the “application”). Justice Ryan discussed the text and context of the Corrective Services Act 2006 as it relates to the process for determining such applications. The prisoner had identified a number of grounds of review in relation to how the Parole Board of Queensland had handled his application, however, her Honour only considered that one of these grounds had merit having been satisfied that the Parole Board of Queensland failed to take into account a relevant consideration when making a decision to ultimately refuse the application. The decision to refuse the application was set aside and the Parole Board of Queensland was directed to remake the decision according to law.

Ryan J

9 December 2022

Background

EWM (the “applicant”), who is serving a life sentence, applied to the Parole Board of Queensland (the “respondent”) for a parole order (the “application”). [11]. The applicant was informed by letter that the respondent had “approved” his release on parole but conditional upon a “suitable accommodation risk assessment”. [17]–[22]. The respondent then purported to make other related decisions about the applicant’s “release on parole” to specified addresses which were considered to be suitable. [23]–[24]; [28]–[39]; [44]–[46]. The respondent had also decided to add a further purported condition to the applicant’s “release on parole” which was the receipt of further information from a psychologist about an “individual intervention program”. [41]–[42]. The applicant was then told that it was the preliminary view of the respondent that his application would be refused (despite previous indications) and provided the applicant an opportunity to respond. [47]. The respondent later refused the application and provided a “statement of reasons” (the “refusal decision”). [48].

Whether the applicant could identify a reviewable error in the making of a decision

One of the grounds of review was that the respondent had made a decision to grant the applicant “parole” and it had no power to “revoke” that decision under the Corrective Services Act 2006. [49]. Justice Ryan considered that this argument proceeded on a misconceived premise. [52]–[55]. The respondent can only grant, refuse or defer an application for a parole order. [4]–[5]. A parole order had never been granted, which meant that this ground of review failed. [55]. The alternative “grounds of review” were focused on the refusal decision. [56]. These grounds of review were narrowed in the course of argument to whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations. [56]–[59]. Justice Ryan considered that this ground had merit, but only to the extent that the respondent had incorrectly proceeded on the basis that the applicant had not participated in any substance abuse program. [60]–[69]. Justice Ryan concluded that in circumstances where the respondent considered there was a direct link between substance abuse and the index offence – which was said to justify further treatment in a custodial setting – whether the applicant had completed a substance abuse intervention program was a “matter of central relevance and importance to its decision.” [70]–[94]. To the extent that the respondent had not taken this into account it was a reviewable error. [95].

Disposition

In the result, the refusal decision was set aside, and it was directed that the decision be remade according to law. [95]. The application was otherwise dismissed. [95]. The parties are to be heard on costs and the appropriate form of order. [97].

D Kerr