A-G (Vic) v Knight - [2009] VSC 465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. S CI 2003 09420

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA	Plaintiff
v
JULIAN KNIGHT	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 OCTOBER 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 OCTOBER 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	A-G (VIC) v KNIGHT
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 465

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant - Application for leave to institute proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of a decision under the Freedom of Information Act – Supreme Court Act 1986, s.21 – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	No appearance
For the Defendant/Applicant	In person
For the Secretary to the Department of Justice	Mr P. Golombek	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by Julian Knight, a prisoner at Port Phillip prison, for leave pursuant to section 21 of the Supreme Court Act, to apply pursuant to section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act, to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of a decision refusing Mr Knight access to a document to which he has requested access.

In support of the application, Mr Knight has filed an affidavit affirmed on 18 August 2009. In that affidavit, Mr Knight sets out the background to the application.

Of relevance in that background are the circumstances first that on 19 August 2004, Mr Knight underwent what is known as a tier one assessment in the prison. That assessment was conducted by two members of Correction Victoria's Sentence Management Unit.

According Mr Knight's affidavit, the conclusion reached by that report was that his risk of reoffending was rated as category 2, low. He was subsequently granted access to that report, as he has been granted access to a number of other reports or assessments. These are listed in paragraph 16 of his affidavit and include the following; first, a report dated 21 August 1987 by Dr Alan Bartholomew, a forensic psychiatrist. Secondly, a new psychological assessment dated 23 February 1998 prepared by Mr Ian Stuart, a consultant neuro psychologist engaged for that purpose. Thirdly, a report dated 29 February 1998 by Mr Tim Watson‑Munro, then a consultant forensic psychologist. Fourthly, a report dated 26 October 1988 by Mr David Sime, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, and finally a report dated the same date, 26 October, 1988, by Dr Kenneth Burn, a clinical and forensic psychologist.

Each of those reports, as I understand it, were reports relating to Mr Knight's psychiatric or psychological condition. Each of them were and are, doubtless, relevant, to Mr Knight's programs and treatment while a prisoner. Each of them, again as I understand it, related particularly to personal medical details of Mr Knight.

The report to which Mr Knight now seeks access, may be in a different category. This may ultimately be a significant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A-G (Vic) v Knight

Details

AGLC: A-G (Vic) v Knight [2009] VSC 465
Case: [2009] VSC 465
Decision Date: 7 OCTOBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of A-G (Vic) v Knight, the Attorney-General for the state of Victoria sought an order from the Supreme Court to prevent the defendant from initiating further proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) without leave. The matter arose under the Freedom of Information Act and was brought by Knight, who was identified as a vexatious litigant. The court was asked to determine whether Knight's application for leave to institute proceedings was frivolous or vexatious, as defined under the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Knight's application for leave to institute proceedings in VCAT was frivolous or vexatious, thereby warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court to prevent further proceedings without leave. The court needed to consider the criteria for determining whether a litigant was vexatious, as well as the specific circumstances of Knight's application. This involved assessing the merits of Knight's claims, the history of similar proceedings, and the potential impact on the administration of justice.

The court found that Knight's application was indeed frivolous and vexatious. It concluded that the application lacked any reasonable prospect of success and was likely to cause unnecessary delay and expense. The court emphasised that the criteria for determining a vexatious litigant were not limited to past conduct but also included the current application and its potential impact on the tribunal. Given these findings, the court granted the Attorney-General's application and issued an order preventing Knight from initiating further proceedings in VCAT without leave. This decision was made to protect the tribunal from being subjected to frivolous claims that would unnecessarily burden its resources.

Orders