Trent Glover SC appeared recently for the successful respondent, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, before Anderson J in the Federal Court of Australia: Rodgerson v Attorney-General [2024] FCA 1354.

The applicant, who had been sentenced to a term of six years and five months’ imprisonment for four offences, including possessing and trafficking controlled drugs, sought judicial review of a decision of a delegate of the Attorney-General to refuse to release him on parole.

Two grounds of review were raised by the applicant: a) the delegate failed to take relevant considerations into account, which resulted in a breach of procedural fairness; and b) the delegate displayed apprehended bias by not bringing an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the decision the delegate was required to make.

In relation to the first ground, Anderson J found that ‘in the context of the statutory framework concerning parole decisions for federal offenders [as opposed to those convicted of an offence against State or Territory law], which does not prescribe a specific parole procedure,’ the Attorney-General’s failure to provide an opportunity for an oral hearing and its alternative consideration of the applicant’s response to an ‘adverse comments letter’ did not amount to procedural unfairness: [39]. This reflects the now well-established position in relation to affording federal offenders procedural fairness in parole decisions.

His Honour also found that the second ground of review must fail, as the applicant’s complaint that the delegate ‘displayed an apprehended bias’ was without substance.

Read the full judgment here.