Farr & Ors v Queensland Corrective Services Commission - [1999] QSC 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND  No. 1028 of 1999
Brisbane
[Farr & Ors v Queensland Corrective Services Commission]
BETWEEN:
  GLEN PATRICK FARR
  First Plaintiff
AND:
  LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER
  Second Plaintiff
AND:
  ROBERT DOUGLAS KIDD
  Third Plaintiff
AND:
  PETER DAVID KILDUFF
  Fourth Plaintiff
AND:
  OLIVER ALINCIC
  Fifth Plaintiff
AND:
  NEIL ASTON
  Sixth Plaintiff
AND:
  RODNEY THOMAS HILLS
  Seventh Plaintiff
AND:
  BRADLEY JAMES LUCEV
  Eighth Plaintiff
AND:
  PHILLIP GRAEME ABELL
  Ninth Plaintiff
AND:
  QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION
  Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MOYNIHAN J.
Judgment delivered 21 April 1999

CATCHWORDS: Administration of prisons - application for declarations - plaintiffs are prisoners held in the Maximum Security Unit at Woodford Correctional Centre - plaintiffs receiving “special treatment” under s.39 Corrective Services Act 1988 - whether regime to which they are subjected is authorised by the Act.

Counsel: Mr W Sofronoff QC and Mr J Davidson for the Plaintiffs
Mr M Plunkett for the Defendant.

Hearing Date:              16 March 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND  No. 1028 of 1999
Brisbane
BETWEEN:
  GLEN PATRICK FARR
  First Plaintiff
AND:
  LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER
  Second Plaintiff
AND:
  ROBERT DOUGLAS KIDD
  Third Plaintiff
AND:
  PETER DAVID KILDUFF
  Fourth Plaintiff
AND:
  OLIVER ALINCIC
  Fifth Plaintiff
AND:
  NEIL ASTON
  Sixth Plaintiff
AND:
  RODNEY THOMAS HILLS
  Seventh Plaintiff
AND:
  BRADLEY JAMES LUCEV
  Eighth Plaintiff
AND:
  PHILLIP GRAEME ABELL
  Ninth Plaintiff
AND:
  QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION
  Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MOYNIHAN J.

Judgment delivered 21 April 1999

1.  The writ in this action having been endorsed with claims for declarations and injunctions the matter comes before me to be disposed of on a motion for final judgment pursuant to order 57 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The defendant, having raised an issue in respect of the effect of the Judicial Review Act 1991, agreed to the issues raised by the action being disposed of.
2.  The fourth and seventh plaintiffs were not parties to the motion for judgment. The considerations applying to the grant of relief to the remaining plaintiffs are essentially identical. It is convenient to occasionally refer to the first plaintiff’s situation to exemplify relevant issues.
3.  The plaintiffs are prisoners and their imprisonment is governed by the provisions of the Corrective Services Act 1988 (the Act). Each is held in the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) at the Woodford Correctional Centre. It is not in issue that they are segregated from other prisoners under conditions which purport to be prescribed by rule. They are thus receiving “special treatment” in terms of s.39 of the Act and the issue is whether the regime to which they are subjected while in the MSU is authorised by the Act. For the purposes of this application the facts relied on by the defendant to found that regime are not in issue.
4.  The first plaintiff’s transfer to the MSU was effected on 12 March 1998, by the general manager of the Sir David Longlands Correctional Centre signing a “Standard Referral” form which “referred” the first plaintiff “for admission”…

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 Farr & Ors v Queensland Corrective Services Commission

Details

AGLC: Farr v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1999] QSC 86
Case: [1999] QSC 86
Decision Date: 21 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Farr & Ors v Queensland Corrective Services Commission, a group of prisoners incarcerated in the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) at Woodford Correctional Centre challenged the legality of their segregation and treatment. The plaintiffs argued that the regime to which they were subjected was not authorised by the Corrective Services Act 1988 (the Act). The case reached the Supreme Court of Queensland, where Justice Moynihan was tasked with determining the legal issues at hand.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the regime to which the plaintiffs were subjected, which involved segregation and behaviour modification plans, was authorised by the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the segregation and treatment of the plaintiffs complied with section 39 of the Act, which deals with special treatment for prisoners. The court also had to consider whether the Queensland Corrective Services Commission's rules and policies were consistent with the Act.

Justice Moynihan ruled that section 39 of the Act was the specific provision that governed the segregation and treatment of prisoners, and that it prevailed over the general provisions relied upon by the defendant. The court found that section 39 did not authorise open-ended special treatment and that the regime to which the plaintiffs were subjected was not compliant with the Act. The court declared that the plaintiffs' incarceration in the MSU at Woodford Correctional Centre was special treatment and must comply with section 39 of the Act. The court also declared that the forfeiture of privileges for reasons other than the practicability of receiving them contravened section 39(4) of the Act.

The court made several declarations, including that the plaintiffs were undergoing special treatment within the meaning of section 39 of the Corrective Services Act 1988 while segregated from other prisoners, and that the regime to which they were subjected was inconsistent with the Act. The court also declared that Chapter 29 of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission's Policy and Procedures Manual and Rule 213 of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission's Rules were invalid to the extent that they purported to authorise the forfeiture of privileges in respect of a period for which a prisoner receives special treatment.

The court did not grant the injunctions sought by the plaintiffs, as it believed that the defendant would act according to law. The case was adjourned to allow for further submissions on the retrospective effect of the orders and approvals and the validity of the incarceration prior to the orders.

Orders