Darcy v Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia Summary

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: DARCY -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2018] WASC 74

CORAM: TOTTLE J

HEARD: 1 MARCH 2018

DELIVERED : 1 MARCH 2018

FILE NO/S: CIV 1283 of 2018

BETWEEN: JOSEPH PAUL DARCY
First Plaintiff
JOSEPH LAURENCE DARCY
Second Plaintiff
AND
PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Habeas corpus - Person serving sentence of imprisonment

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     No appearance
Second Plaintiff             :     In person
Defendant:     Ms H Richardson

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     No appearance
Second Plaintiff             :     In person
Defendant:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ex parte Williams (1934) 51 CLR 545

TOTTLE J: I am dealing with an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus made by Mr Joseph Paul Darcy and Mr Joseph Laurence Darcy. The application is made for an order compelling the respondent, the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia, to release Mr Joseph Paul Darcy from the Wooroloo Prison Farm where he is presently held. The application has been brought on short notice and Mr Joseph Laurence Darcy appears in person.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Joseph Laurence Darcy and by a document entitled petition for writ of habeas corpus. The paperwork is irregular in form, but for present purposes no adverse consequences flow from that.
For reasons I explained to Mr Darcy in the course of the hearing and which I will restate now, this is an application which cannot succeed because a writ of habeas corpus will not issue to compel the release of a person who is serving a term of imprisonment following conviction in a court: Ex parte Williams (1934) 51 CLR 545, 548 - 549.
It is beyond any argument, and indeed, the submissions that Mr Joseph Laurence Darcy has made on Mr Joseph Paul Darcy's behalf acknowledge, that Mr Joseph Paul Darcy is serving a sentence of imprisonment following conviction. That is confirmed by the transcript of a hearing before Magistrate Langden that took place on 4 April 2017 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia sitting at Mandurah, which records both the fact of Mr Joseph Paul Darcy's convictions of various offences and the imposition of terms of imprisonment that add up to a total term of one year and three months.
For those reasons the application must be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darcy v Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia involved a challenge to the legality of the detention of the applicant by the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia. The applicant, Darcy, sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant's continued detention was lawful under the applicable statutory provisions and whether the board had properly exercised its discretion in denying his release on parole.

The court had to consider the statutory framework governing the detention and parole of prisoners in Western Australia. It examined whether the board had adhered to the legal requirements in making its decision and whether there were any errors in the interpretation or application of the law. The applicant argued that his detention was unlawful and that the board had failed to consider relevant factors in denying his parole. The board, on the other hand, maintained that its decision was based on a proper assessment of the applicant's risk to the community and that the detention was in accordance with the law.

The court held that the board had exercised its discretion in a manner that was consistent with the statutory requirements. It found that the board had appropriately considered the relevant factors and that there was no error in the decision-making process. The applicant's challenge to the lawfulness of his detention was dismissed, and the writ of habeas corpus was refused. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented to the board. The court concluded that the board's decision was within its lawful powers and that there were no grounds for interfering with its decision. The final orders of the court confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant's detention and upheld the decision of the Prisoners Review Board.

Darcy v Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established