Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services - [2000] QSC 492

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services
[2000] QSC 492
PARTIES: BRENDON JAMES ABBOTT
(applicant)
v
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIVE SERVICES
(respondent)
FILE NO/S: SC No 9096 of 2000
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 21 December 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 13 December 2000
JUDGE: Williams J
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PRISONS – whether decision of prison authority lawful - applicant sought declarations that respondent’s treatment of applicant under maximum security orders unlawful – where conditions attaching to orders included segregation, restriction of privileges and frequent relocation from cell to cell without prior notice – where applicant had history of escape from correctional facilities – where applicant’s present behaviour “acceptable” – whether there was a failure to accord procedural fairness in making orders – whether decisions concerning conditions attaching to orders were invalid for failure to comply with relevant legislation – whether there were reasonable grounds for respondent to decide that there is a high risk that applicant will escape or attempt to escape – not established that applicant’s present acceptable behaviour outweighs his past behavioural patterns so as to justify a conclusion that the current maximum security orders are unlawful.
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 43A, s 43B, s 43C
Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988 (Qld), s 13(1),
s 18
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 32(1)
Flynn v King (1949) 79 CLR 1, approved
Kidd v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services
[2000] QSC 405; judgment 10 November 2000, approved
R v Classification Committee; ex parte Finnerty (1980) VR
561, applied
Re: Walker [1993] 2 Qd R 345, applied
Smith v Commissioner of Corrective Services (1978) 1
NSWLR 317, applied
COUNSEL: W Sofronoff QC with G C Newton for the applicant
J A Logan SC with A J MacSporran for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Witheriff Nyst for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the respondent

WILLIAMS J: The applicant, Brendon James Abbott, is currently serving lengthy sentences of imprisonment for a series of violent crimes committed some time ago. He is currently subject to a “maximum security order” made pursuant to Subdivision 1A of Division 5 of Part 2 of the Corrective Services Act 1988 (“the Act”). Consequent upon such orders being made he has been segregated from other prisoners and been subjected to a number of restrictions not applicable to other prisoners held in custody in institutions under the control of the respondent, Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services.
The applicant has now applied for the following principal orders:

“1. A declaration that the respondent’s treatment of the applicant as outlined in
the applicant's affidavit sworn the 13 October, 2000 namely:

(a)

the forced detention of the applicant in the applicant’s prison cell for not less than 20 hours each day;

(b)

the restriction of the applicant’s interaction with other inmates to a maximum of two other persons at any given time;
(c) failure to provide the applicant with any meaningful employment;

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 Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services

Details

AGLC: Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2000] QSC 492
Case: [2000] QSC 492
Decision Date: 21 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services involved a challenge by the applicant, Abbott, to the maximum security orders imposed on him by the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrective Services. The applicant argued that the conditions attached to these orders, which included segregation, restriction of privileges, and frequent relocation without prior notice, were unlawful. These conditions were imposed due to Abbott's history of escape attempts from correctional facilities. Despite his current "acceptable" behaviour, Abbott sought declarations that the treatment he received under these orders was unlawful. The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent's decisions were procedurally fair, whether the conditions complied with relevant legislation, and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe Abbott posed a high risk of escaping or attempting to escape.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the imposition of maximum security orders, including procedural fairness requirements. It held that the respondent's decisions were procedurally sound, as Abbott had been given adequate notice and an opportunity to present his case. The court found no evidence of a failure to comply with relevant legislation in the imposition of the conditions. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had reasonable grounds to impose the maximum security measures based on Abbott's history of escape attempts. The applicant's current acceptable behaviour did not outweigh his past patterns to justify the conclusion that the maximum security orders were unlawful.

In light of the court's findings, it dismissed Abbott's application. The court held that the conditions attached to the maximum security orders were lawful, procedural fairness had been accorded, and there were reasonable grounds to believe Abbott posed a high risk of escape. Therefore, the application for declarations that the orders were unlawful was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2000] QSC 492
PARTIES:	BRENDON JAMES ABBOTT (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 9096 of 2000
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 December 2000
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PRISONS – whether decision of prison authority lawful - applicant sought declarations that respondent’s treatment of applicant under maximum security orders unlawful – where conditions attaching to orders included segregation, restriction of privileges and frequent relocation from cell to cell without prior notice – where applicant had history of escape from correctional facilities – where applicant’s present behaviour “acceptable” – whether there was a failure to accord procedural fairness in making orders – whether decisions concerning conditions attaching to orders were invalid for failure to comply with relevant legislation – whether there were reasonable grounds for respondent to decide that there is a high risk that applicant will escape or attempt to escape – not established that applicant’s present acceptable behaviour outweighs his past behavioural patterns so as to justify a conclusion that the current maximum security orders are unlawful.
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 43A, s 43B, s 43C Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988 (Qld), s 13(1), s 18 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 32(1)
Flynn v King (1949) 79 CLR 1, approved Kidd v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services
[2000] QSC 405; judgment 10 November 2000, approved R v Classification Committee; ex parte Finnerty (1980) VR 561, applied Re: Walker [1993] 2 Qd R 345, applied Smith v Commissioner of Corrective Services (1978) 1 NSWLR 317, applied
COUNSEL:	W Sofronoff QC with G C Newton for the applicant J A Logan SC with A J MacSporran for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Witheriff Nyst for the applicant Crown Solicitor for the respondent

(a)	the forced detention of the applicant in the applicant’s prison cell for not less than 20 hours each day;
(b)	the restriction of the applicant’s interaction with other inmates to a maximum of two other persons at any given time;
(c)	failure to provide the applicant with any meaningful employment;