Parole lawyer’s workplace retaliation claim hits roadblock

A workplace clash between a parole lawyer and the state of Queensland has hit a hurdle.

The Parole Board of Queensland and the state of Queensland, on behalf of Queensland Corrective Services, came out on top in its application to have the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) strike out Louise Benjamin’s contentions in its entirety.

The legal officer has been ordered to file and serve a second further amended statement of facts and contentions, this time in a way that addresses several of the first version’s material deficiencies.

Benjamin alleged she was the subject of unlawful reprisals because she made two public interest disclosures; the first in April 2022 to the president of the Parole Board, and the second the following month to the Crime and Corruption Commission.

According to earlier reports, Benjamin alleged her superior engaged in certain “official misconduct” with unnamed senior judges.

In the strike-out application, the respondents – which also includes Benjamin’s former superior – submitted that Benjamin’s contentions “are replete with bare assertions and rolled up allegations”.

The contentions also raised “various allegations by the respondents but either fails to identify which of those is alleged to constitute reprisal action or which alleged public interest disclosure is said to motivate the alleged reprisal,” according to the written decision.

Having identified several deficiencies in the contentions, QIRC deputy president John Merrell found in favour of the respondents.

In one example, Benjamin included a transcript of an audio recording of a November 2022 meeting where she was allegedly told she would be permanently removed from the legal services unit.

Merrell said there were “no other material facts … alleging that the unfavourable treatment contained … was because the applicant made any of the public interest disclosures she alleged she made”.

Further, Benjamin’s claim that it was an act of reprisal for one of the respondents to deny her a referee report similarly had no material facts that it was motivated by one or both alleged disclosures.

“If an applicant alleges that they have suffered reprisals because they have made public interest disclosures … the statement of facts and contentions must address the elements,” Merrell said.

In an earlier decision, published at the beginning of 2025, Benjamin sought to have a commission member recused on two grounds of actual bias and six grounds of apprehended bias.

Benjamin alleged the member had a “vested interest” in the outcome of the proceedings, particularly because he was “desperate to protect all judicial officers of the Supreme Court at all costs”.

The recusal application was dismissed.

Citation: Benjamin v Sharp & Ors (No 2) [2026] QIRC 117.