› Error of law – whether inference of misconstruction of statutory test available from decision-maker's reasons
Administrative Law
› Judicial Review
› Adequacy of reasons – failure to articulate comparator for 'exceptional circumstances' not of itself indicative of error
Criminal Law
› Parole
› Exceptional circumstances parole order – meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' – Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) ss 176, 194(1)(a)
Criminal Law
› Parole
› Post-sentence assistance to police – causal connection and value of assistance relevant to whether circumstances exceptional
Quick Take
1'Exceptional circumstances' in s 194(1)(a) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) are circumstances exceptional as relevant to treating a particular prisoner more favourably in respect of parole release than would otherwise be the case. Merely identifying something different that affects the prisoner is not enough.
2A reviewing court should not infer that the Parole Board misconstrued the exceptional circumstances test merely because the Board did not articulate a comparator or explain in detail why a matter was not exceptional. Here, the Board had cited s 194(1)(a) and R v BCX [2015] QCA 188 at [29], and had sought further detail on the value of the prisoner's assistance to police. On the facts, this showed it applied the correct test.
3Per Doyle JA (Hindman J agreeing), applying Siganto v The Queen by analogy: a disparity arising because a concessional sentencing amendment was not given retrospective operation is a consequence of the change in the law. It does not of itself constitute an exceptional circumstance in relation to a prisoner sentenced under the former regime. Bond JA left open whether the Board was correct to conclude there were no exceptional circumstances.
