Coulston v Wise - [2010] VSC 135

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2009 10562

ASHLEY COULSTON	Plaintiff
v
RODERICK WISE, BOB HASTINGS, VICKI RYAN and TREVOR PICKERING	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 February 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 April 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Coulston v Wise & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 135

---

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Relief in the nature of certiorari and mandamus – Challenge to decision of Major Offenders Review Panel – Denial of prisoner’s application for in-cell computer – Previous non-compliance with requirements for in-cell computer use - Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Mr Coulston (in person)
For the Defendants	Mr T P Mitchell	Nafsika Sahinidis, Manager Legal Services, Corrections Victoria

HER HONOUR:

The applications

The plaintiff (‘Mr Coulston’) is presently serving a life sentence, with no minimum term, at HM Prison Barwon, Victoria. His sentence was imposed by the Court on 11 September 1995. He now seeks orders relating to the refusal of his request for an ‘in-cell’ computer on 12 October 2009 by a body of senior officers within Corrections Victoria known as the Major Offenders Review Panel (‘the Panel’).

The defendants are Mr Roderick Wise, described as ‘Corrections Victoria Deputy Commissioner’, Mr Bob Hastings, described as ‘Corrections Victoria Commissioner’, Ms Vicki Ryan, described as ‘General Manager [Major Offenders Unit]’ and Mr Trevor Pickering, described as ‘General Manager SMU’. No point was taken as to the availability of the relief sought against the defendants as members of the Panel.

By his originating motion filed on 8 December 2009, Mr Coulston seeks first, leave to commence proceedings, which is not required.

He then claims:

· ‘an order in the nature of a “prohibitory injunction” restraining the defendant officers from refusing to allow the processing of [his] Application for Access to a Personal Computer’;

· in the alternative, ‘an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the defendant to reconsider [his] Application for Access to a Personal Computer according to the law’; and

· a declaration that his application be re-considered.

Mr Coulston was unrepresented before the Court. He pointed out, and I have noted, his lack of legal training and his limited access to legal materials. Accordingly, I have considered the substance of his application, rather than its form. As a result, I have treated the application as one seeking relief in the nature of certiorari in addition to the other relief sought. This approach was endorsed by counsel for the defendants.

The Panel’s role

I note at this point that Mr Coulston’s application for an in-cell computer came before the Panel because it had classified him as a ‘major offender’ in 2006. The Panel is responsible for classifying as such those prisoners considered to require a greater degree of supervision and monitoring than others. This may be for reasons including that they are thought to be particularly dangerous or to pose significant risks to staff…

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 Coulston v Wise

Details

AGLC: Coulston v Wise [2010] VSC 135
Case: [2010] VSC 135
Decision Date: 21 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Coulston sought judicial review of a decision by the Major Offenders Review Panel that refused his application for an in-cell computer. The applicant, a prisoner, argued that the decision was unreasonable and amounted to a denial of his right to access the internet for educational purposes. The court was tasked with determining whether the panel's decision was legally sound and whether the applicant's rights had been violated.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the panel’s interpretation of its own guidelines and the extent to which the applicant's prior non-compliance with certain conditions impacted the decision. The court had to assess whether the panel's reliance on the applicant’s history of non-compliance was justified and whether the decision was tainted by any procedural unfairness. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the refusal to grant the in-cell computer application breached any statutory rights or principles of natural justice.

The court found that the panel's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on a legitimate consideration of the applicant's past non-compliance with rules regarding in-cell computer use. The court held that the panel was entitled to take into account the applicant's history when deciding whether to grant the application. Furthermore, the court determined that the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and did not infringe upon any statutory rights. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders