A recent Supreme Court ruling has reinforced the need for fairness and accuracy in parole decisions, particularly for offenders in custody or imprisonment. The case involved Chris Silk, an offender who was sentenced to five years in prison for break and enter and robbery with personal violence. His parole application was unfairly denied based on incorrect information, leading to a successful legal challenge.
What is Parole?
Parole is a system that allows eligible prisoners to serve part of their sentence outside of jail, under strict supervision. It is not an automatic right but a privilege granted based on factors such as behaviour in prison, rehabilitation efforts, and the risk posed to the community. The parole board assesses whether a prisoner, in custody in Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, or anywhere else in Australia, has made sufficient progress in addressing the causes of their offending and whether they can be safely managed outside of prison.
Parole conditions may include regular meetings with a parole officer, participation in rehabilitation programs, restrictions on travel, and requirements to avoid certain people or places. If conditions are breached, parole can be revoked, and the person may be returned to jail.
Key Findings in the Case
Justice Bradley ruled that the Parole Board acted on “an inappropriate and somewhat arrogant assumption,” failing to acknowledge Mr Silk’s participation in drug rehabilitation programs. The board also ignored the fact that parole eligibility dates are legally binding, as set by the sentencing court.
Mr Silk faced two parole refusals in 2024. After the board failed to provide timely written reasons for its decision, he pursued a statutory order of review. When the board eventually released a statement of reasons, it contained factual errors, including claims that he had not completed rehabilitation programs—despite clear evidence to the contrary.
In its statement, the board wrongly asserted that Mr Silk remained an “untreated drug offender.” However, he had successfully completed all available substance abuse programs, developed a relapse prevention plan, and remained on an opiate substitution therapy (OST) program both before and during his time in custody.
Errors Made by the Parole Board
The Supreme Court found that the Parole Board relied on irrelevant and incorrect assumptions, including a flawed belief that the sentencing court was unaware of Mr Silk’s rehabilitation efforts. The board’s failure to properly consider his parole eligibility date violated legal requirements. Justice Bradley noted that similar errors had been made in previous parole cases, suggesting a pattern of flawed decision-making.
The Parole Board’s counsel attempted to argue that the incorrect statements in its reasoning should be disregarded. However, Justice Bradley dismissed this claim, emphasising that these errors were found throughout the board’s decision-making process. The ruling made it clear that the board had failed to consider Mr Silk’s case on its merits.
As a result, the court set aside the board’s decision and ordered a reconsideration of Mr Silk’s parole application within 28 days. The Parole Board was also required to cover his legal costs.
The Importance of Legal Representation in Parole Matters
This case highlights the critical role of legal representation in challenging unjust parole decisions. Many parole refusals are based on incorrect or incomplete information, and without proper legal guidance, prisoners—whether in jail on the Gold Coast, in Queensland, New South Wales, or Tasmania—may struggle to contest these decisions effectively. A successful appeal can mean the difference between prolonged incarceration and the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Our team are experts in criminal law. Our role is to sit down with you and work out the strategy that will get you the best possible result. If you have any questions about this article or any other topic of law, please call our team of experts on 1300 066 669.
