Background
Amasia Vakameilalo was serving a 12-year sentence for drug trafficking and possession, with a parole eligibility date in October 2027. He has Type 1 diabetes and terminal Stage 5 chronic kidney disease, requiring haemodialysis three times weekly. Medical material described a poor prognosis and indicated that his life expectancy could be shorter than the average five to 10 years for dialysis patients.
In July 2025, Vakameilalo applied for exceptional-circumstances parole, relying principally on the difficulty of managing his medical conditions in custody, including dialysis transport and diet. The Parole Board Queensland sought further medical and custodial-health information before refusing the application on 18 March 2026. It found that his health and dietary needs were being adequately managed in custody.
The Court’s Holding
Ryan J granted judicial review and set aside the Board’s refusal. The Court rejected the contention that the Board acted unreasonably in finding that the burden of dialysis and dietary arrangements did not, on the evidence, establish exceptional circumstances. It was also permissible for the Board to examine whether Vakameilalo’s health needs could be managed in custody and to compare his circumstances with those of other prisoners with health conditions.
However, the Board failed to take into account an obvious and highly relevant consideration: Vakameilalo’s reduced life expectancy arising from his terminal condition. Although the Board had recorded medical information about prognosis, its reasons did not show that reduced life expectancy played any part in deciding whether circumstances were exceptional. The explanatory material for the legislation specifically identified a terminal illness with a short life expectancy as an example of exceptional circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- A parole board may assess whether a prisoner’s treatment and dietary needs are being adequately managed in custody.
- That adequate custodial care does not remove the need to consider a terminally ill prisoner’s reduced life expectancy.
- Setting aside the refusal did not itself grant parole; the Court left further orders, including costs, for further hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that exceptional-circumstances parole requires an evaluative judgment on all material considerations, not simply an assessment of whether prison health arrangements are presently adequate. A terminal diagnosis and shortened life expectancy may be independently significant, particularly where those circumstances arose after sentencing.
For decision-makers, acknowledging medical evidence is insufficient if the reasons do not demonstrate genuine consideration of a plainly relevant feature of that evidence.