In Nijp v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 104, the applicant, Philip Nijp, sought a statutory order of review challenging the decisions by the Parole Board Queensland that denied his parole application in January and May 2024. The crux of Nijp's argument was that despite having favourable circumstances, his parole was refused because he had not completed the Inclusion Sexual Offenders Program (ISOP), which was infrequently offered with an uncertain schedule.
Justice Applegarth acknowledged that the Board did not properly consider Nijp's willingness to undertake an equivalent program available in the community, which could be initiated more promptly, resulting in Nijp being supervised in the community for a longer period before his full-time release date. Given that the ISOP had a significant waitlist and there was no assurance when Nijp could undertake it in custody, the Court found the Board failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the future release risk and the availability of equivalent treatment in the community. Consequently, the decisions were set aside, and the Parole Board was ordered to reconsider Nijp's parole application expediently.