DE ALWIS -v- MINISTER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES [2013] WASC 288

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 288
Case No:	CIV:1960/2013	Heard:	31 JULY 2013
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	31/07/13
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed Stay order dissolved
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	VIJITHA GAMINI DE ALWIS MINISTER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT, CASUARINA PRISON MR P ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, CASUARINA PRISON MR RATTAN, PRISON OFFICER, CASUARINA PRISON MS HARROWER, PRISON OFFICER, CASUARINA PRISON
Catchwords:	Prerogative relief Prison discipline Whether arguable case No new principles
Legislation:	Prisons Act 1981 (WA)
Case References:	De Alwis v Minister for Corrective Services [2013] WASC 275

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : DE ALWIS -v- MINISTER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES [2013] WASC 288 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 31 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 31 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1960 of 2013 BETWEEN : VIJITHA GAMINI DE ALWIS

Applicant

AND

MINISTER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES

First Respondent

COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES

Second Respondent

SUPERINTENDENT, CASUARINA PRISON

Third Respondent

MR P ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, CASUARINA PRISON

Fourth Respondent

MR RATTAN, PRISON OFFICER, CASUARINA PRISON

Fifth Respondent

MS HARROWER, PRISON OFFICER, CASUARINA PRISON

Sixth Respondent

Catchwords:

Prerogative relief - Prison discipline - Whether arguable case - No new principles

Legislation:

Prisons Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Stay order dissolved

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person & Ms S M De Alwis

First Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Second Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Third Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Fourth Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Fifth Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Sixth Respondent : Mr G Tannin SC & Ms A Preston-Sanson

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person & McKenzie Friend

First Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Second Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Third Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Fourth Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Fifth Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Sixth Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

De Alwis v Minister for Corrective Services [2013] WASC 275

McKECHNIE J

How this matter comes to court

1 The applicant is a sentenced prisoner who applied urgently for prerogative relief in respect of a decision made to place him on basic supervision for a period of seven days. On 18 June 2013, Beech J heard the application, made programming orders and stayed proceedings until today.

2 The applicant was returned to his cell in Unit 13, but on 27 June 2013 a further decision was taken to place him in basic supervision. He applied urgently to this court again. Simmonds J heard the application over four days and published detailed reasons for dismissing it: De Alwis v Minister for Corrective Services [2013] WASC…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read De Alwis v Minister for Corrective Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] WASC 288
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of De Alwis v Minister for Corrective Services was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, De Alwis, sought prerogative relief concerning alleged unlawful conduct by the Minister for Corrective Services in relation to prison discipline. De Alwis, a prisoner, claimed that certain disciplinary actions taken against him were unlawful and sought an order from the court to quash these decisions. The court was required to determine whether De Alwis had made out an arguable case that warranted the grant of prerogative relief and if the relief was available in the context of prison discipline.

The primary legal issue for the court was to assess whether De Alwis had established an arguable case that the disciplinary actions taken against him were unlawful. The court had to consider whether the relief sought was available in the context of prison discipline and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that there was a reasonable argument in favour of the relief being granted. The court also needed to ensure that no new principles of law were being introduced in the decision.

The court found that De Alwis had not demonstrated an arguable case that the disciplinary actions taken against him were unlawful. The court held that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the disciplinary measures were arbitrary or unjust. Consequently, the application for prerogative relief was dismissed, and the stay order previously granted was dissolved. The court emphasised that no new principles of law were introduced and that the decision was consistent with existing legal principles governing prerogative relief in the context of prison discipline.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Stay order dissolved

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.