Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services

Case [2016] NSWCA 186

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2016] NSWCA 186
Hearing dates:21, 24 March 2016
Decision date: 09 August 2016
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Simpson JA at [39];
Emmett AJA at [50].
Decision:

1.   Remove the State of New South Wales as a party to the proceedings and join the Commissioner for Corrective Services as the respondent.
2.   Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the judgment of Hidden J delivered on 17 June 2014 in the Common Law Division.
3.   Direct that the draft notice of appeal in the white folder be deemed to be filed as the notice of appeal.
4.   Dismiss the appeal.
5.   Order the applicant to pay the costs of the State of New South Wales in this Court.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – prisoner involved in litigation – judicial review of decisions affecting conditions of appellant’s incarceration – whether Court has powers to make orders pursuant to the power of the Court to exercise control over its own processes –whether making of orders would constitute interference in prison administration and management

  PRISONS – judicial review of decisions as to management of prisoner – classification – accommodation alone in cell – access to laptop computer and legal papers – access to large monitor for computer – order sought for medical/psychiatric evaluation
Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 2A, 3, 4, 23, 72, 79, 232, 233, 271; Pt 2, Pt 14
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 (NSW), cll 33, 44
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW), cll 36, 47, 48
Prisons Act 1952 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.4
Cases Cited: Anderson v Pavic [2005] VSCA 244
Clark v State of New South Wales & Ors [2014] NSWSC 801
Flynn v The King (1949) 79 CLR 1
Horwitz v Connor (1908) 6 CLR 38
Howard v Jarvis (1958) 98 CLR 177
Kelleher v Commissioner of Department of Corrective Services [1999] NSWSC 86
Kelleher v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 423
Modica v Commissioner for Corrective Services (1994) 77 A Crim R 82
Osborn v The Parole Board [2014] AC 1115; [2013] UKSC 61
Patsalis v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 307
Patsalis v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 267
Peter Frederick Clark v TNR [2008] NSWSC 828
R v Vachalec [1981] 1 NSWLR 351
Smith v Commissioner of Corrective Services (NSWSC, 20 December 1977, unreported)
Smith v Commissioner of Corrective Services [1978] 1 NSWLR 317
United States Tobacco Company v Minister for Consumer Affairs (1988) 20 FCR 520
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Frederick Clark (Appellant)
State of New South Wales (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented (Appellant)
M Heath / A Kaylinger (Amicus Curiae)
K Stern SC, A N Williams (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Self-represented (Appellant)
Crown Solicitors for NSW (Respondent)
File Number(s):2014/233686
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
New South Wales Supreme Court

Continue reading Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2016] NSWCA 186
Case
[2016] NSWCA 186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a prisoner, Mr. Clark, who sought judicial review of decisions made by the Commissioner for Corrective Services regarding his incarceration. The dispute involved the conditions of his confinement, including his classification, accommodation in a cell alone, access to a laptop computer and legal papers, and the provision of a large monitor for his computer. Mr. Clark also sought an order for a medical/psychiatric evaluation. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Basten and Simpson JJA and Emmett AJA.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Court possessed the power to make orders concerning the conditions of Mr. Clark's incarceration, and if so, whether making such orders would constitute an impermissible interference in the administration and management of the prison system. The Court was required to consider the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction over administrative decisions affecting prisoners.

The Court reasoned that while it had the power to exercise control over its own processes, this power did not extend to directly intervening in the day-to-day management of prisons. The Court distinguished between reviewing the legality of decisions and directing the manner in which a prison should be managed. It held that the orders sought by Mr. Clark would amount to an unwarranted interference with the operational responsibilities of the Commissioner for Corrective Services. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Court ordered that the State of New South Wales be removed as a party and the Commissioner for Corrective Services joined as the respondent. Leave to appeal was granted, and the draft notice of appeal was deemed filed. The appeal itself was dismissed, and Mr. Clark was ordered to pay the costs of the State of New South Wales in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Remove the State of New South Wales as a party to the proceedings and join the Commissioner for Corrective Services as the respondent.

2. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the judgment of Hidden J delivered on 17 June 2014 in the Common Law Division.

3. Direct that the draft notice of appeal in the white folder be deemed to be filed as the notice of appeal.

4. Dismiss the appeal.

5. Order the applicant to pay the costs of the State of New South Wales in this Court.

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.