Bartz v Department of Corrective Services

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bartz v Department of Corrective Services [2002] QSC 056

PARTIES:

WADE ANTHONY BARTZ
(applicant)
v
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S3958 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19  March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 December 2001

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review legislation – application for judicial review – applicant aggrieved by decision – character of decision – whether decision of Chief Executive was conclusive – whether made under an enactment – grounds for review – whether failure to follow procedural requirements – whether no evidence to justify decision – whether failure to take into account relevant material – whether decision unreasonable.

Corrective Services Act 1988, s 13(2), s 207B
Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988

Judicial Review Act 1991, s 3, s 4, s 20, s 20(1), s 52

Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services, SC No 9096 of 2000, unreported decision of 21 December 2000
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Blizzard v O’Sullivan [1994] 1 Qd R 112
Burns v Australian National University (1982) 40 ALR 707
Concord Data Solutions Pty Ltd v Director General of Education [1994] 1 Qd R 343
Evans v Friemann (1981) 35 ALR 428
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Masters v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services, SC No 4827 of 2000, unreported decision of 2 March 2001
McEvoy v Lobban [1990] 2 Qd R 235
Post Office Agents Association Ltd & Anor v Australian Postal Commission (1988) 84 ALR 563
Rice Growers Cooperative Mills Limited v Bannerman (1980) 30 ALR 571
Re: Walker [1993] 2 Qd R 345

COUNSEL:

W A Bartz, applicant in person

M Plunkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

W A Bartz, applicant in person
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: 

1.The Application          

1. This is an application for a statutory order of review pursuant to s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (“the JR Act”) by Wade Anthony Bartz, the applicant, of a decision of the respondent, the Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services. The applicant appeared on his own behalf by telephone link to argue the application. He also provided written submissions.

1. The applicant has identified the relevant “decision” in respect of which he seeks review, as the respondent’s decision concerning the removal of the applicant’s tattoos, as set out in a letter dated 9 November 2000 from the respondent to the applicant.  In that letter, it was indicated that support for the removal of the tattoos was subject to the following conditions:

(a)        no measures would be implemented until two years prior to the applicant’s earliest due release date;

(b)        only the tattoos from the applicant’s face would be removed; and

(c)        the applicant would be required to make a contribution toward the costs involved as the applicant was seeking private medical consultations.

1. The applicant…