Bartz v Department of Corrective Services

[2001] QSC 392

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bartz v Department of Corrective Services [2001] QSC 392

PARTIES:

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

FILE NO/S:

8042 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 October 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 October 2001

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Refuse the application with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION – applicant aggrieved by decision – whether decision made by Chief Executive was made under an enactment, or was of a managerial nature – courts will not review management decisions within prisons in the absence of bad faith – whether prisoner has legitimate expectation of entitlement to employment as a full time student under the Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988 (Qld)

Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 59
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld)
Corrective Services (Administration) Act 1988 (Qld), s 18, 19, s 21
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 7(1), s 20(1), s 32, s 38

Abbott v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services SC No 9096 of 2000, unreported decision of 21 December 2000, followed
Australian National University v Burns (1982) 43 ALR 25, considered
Blizzard v O’Sullivan [1994] 1 Qd R 112, considered
Flynn v The King (1949) 79 CLR 1, considered
Grey v Hamburger [1993] 1 Qd R 595, followed
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, distinguished
Masters v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services, SC No 4827 of 2000, unreported decision of 2 March 2001, followed
McEvoy v Lobban [1990] 2 Qd R 235, followed
Re Walker [1993] 2 Qd R 345, followed

COUNSEL:

Applicant on his own behalf
Mr M Plunkett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant on his own behalf
Crown Solicitor for the respondent

1. The applicant, who is a prisoner at the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre, Mareeba, seeks an order pursuant to s 38 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (the “Act”) that the respondent provide him with a statement of reasons pursuant to s 32 of the Act for declining to designate him a full-time student at the Lotus Glen Farm.

1. The applicant appeared on his own behalf by telephone link to argue his application.  He had, in conformity with directions made by Mackenzie J on 11 September 2001, provided, inter alia, written submissions.

1. By letter dated 27 June 2001 to the General Manager of Lotus Glen Correctional Centre the applicant sought to be designated as a full time student at the Lotus Glen Farm and remunerated as such, so that he could pursue his studies and be in a better position to obtain employment on his release.  The applicant says that he has been a full-time student whilst at main correctional centres during his incarceration and does not wish to engage in “pointless” occupations such as working in the fruit shed, which would be of no use in…