Background
David Oscar Miller was serving a sentence of six years and eight months’ imprisonment, with a four-year non-parole period, for conspiracy to defraud and aiding and abetting the dealing with proceeds of crime. The offending included a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth Department of Education of more than $9 million through false childcare-payment claims.
In November 2025, a delegate of the Commonwealth Attorney-General refused to release Miller on parole. The delegate cited the seriousness of the offending, insufficiently confirmed substance-abuse treatment and other professional support, proposed accommodation with his brother and co-offender, his criminal history, and custodial misconduct. Miller sought judicial review, alleging procedural unfairness, deficiencies in the material supplied to the delegate, failure to make inquiries or consider relevant matters, legal unreasonableness, and factual error.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Abraham dismissed the application. The Court found no denial of procedural fairness: the pre-decision adverse-comments process sufficiently alerted Miller to concerns about his post-release supports and gave him an opportunity to respond. His stated intention to seek counselling, referrals, and other assistance after release did not establish that professional supports were already confirmed.
The remaining grounds also failed to establish jurisdictional error. The delegate was entitled to assess the information before her, including the Community Corrections report and Miller’s submissions, and the Court was not persuaded that omitted health material, further inquiries, proposed parole controls, or the co-offender’s change of address invalidated the decision. The reasons disclosed an intelligible basis for concluding that release at that time presented unacceptable risks and would not adequately advance rehabilitation or reintegration. Miller was ordered to pay the Attorney-General’s costs.
Key Takeaways
- Federal offenders have no entitlement to parole; release after the non-parole period is an executive decision under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
- Procedural fairness requires a meaningful opportunity to answer significant adverse concerns, but not advance notice of every word or evaluative formulation used in the final reasons.
- Judicial review examines whether the parole power was exercised lawfully, not whether the Court would have granted parole on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the broad decisional freedom available to the Attorney-General and delegates when evaluating community safety, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Courts may intervene for jurisdictional error, but they will not reweigh risk factors or substitute their preferred parole outcome.
For parole applicants, proposed community treatment, accommodation, and support arrangements should be concrete and substantiated. An intention to obtain services after release may reasonably be treated differently from confirmed arrangements capable of managing identified risks immediately.