Haigh v Ryan - [2020] VSC 102

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2018 01474

PAUL STEVEN HAIGH	Plaintiff
v
BRETT RYAN (IN HIS CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF BARWON PRISON)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Cavanough J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Not applicable. Determination on the papers.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Haigh v Ryan (in his capacity as Governor of Barwon Prison)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 102

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Decision to stop prisoner’s letter – Decision later reversed – Claim for declaratory relief – Academic question – No declarations made – Proceeding dismissed – Corrections Act 1989 (Vic) ss 47(1)(n), 47D; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 7, 13, 14, 15, 38, 39.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Not applicable
For the Defendant	Not applicable

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and overview

The plaintiff, Paul Steven Haigh, is a prisoner at Barwon Prison serving a life sentence for multiple murders. The defendant, Brett Ryan, is the Governor and General Manager of Barwon Prison.

This proceeding was commenced by Mr Haigh on 20 April 2018 by the filing of an originating motion under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. In his originating motion, Mr Haigh sought judicial review of a decision that had been made on 7 March 2018 by a prison officer, Mr L Doherty, who was the then Acting Operations Manager of Barwon Prison, and who in this instance was exercising powers delegated to him by Mr Ryan (as Governor/General Manager of Barwon Prison). The decision was to stop the sending of a letter written by Mr Haigh to an evangelical Christian organisation known as ‘Tomorrow’s World’. That organisation was the maker of a weekly television program of the same name.

As indicated in his affidavit of 3 April 2018 filed in support of the originating motion, Mr Haigh’s contention, in essence, was that the decision of 7 March 2018 had been made pursuant to an alleged prison policy which, according to Mr Haigh, imposed a ‘blanket ban’ on prisoners communicating with the media, being a policy that was allegedly in conflict with prisoners’ rights under s 47(1)(n) of the Corrections Act 1986 (‘Corrections Act’) and with prisoners’ human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the ‘Charter’).

However, it turned out that, even before this proceeding was commenced, Mr Haigh had circumvented the decision of 7 March 2018 by causing a friend to send a copy of the letter to Tomorrow’s World. Indeed by 24 August 2018 Mr Haigh had received back from Tomorrow’s World, via his friend, a letter of reply dated 20 April 2018 and also several items of printed religious material. Mr Haigh revealed these matters in their full scope for the first time by an affidavit dated 28 August 2018 filed in this proceeding. However, Mr Haigh declined to…

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 Haigh v Ryan 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: [2020] VSC 102
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haigh v Ryan, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent to intercept and cease the delivery of a letter intended for a third party. The applicant argued that the decision was unlawful and violated their rights under various statutes. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the legality of the decision to intercept and stop the delivery of the letter, and whether the applicant had standing to bring the claim. The court was also required to consider the provisions of the Corrections Act 1989 (Vic) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) in determining the legality of the decision.

The court found that the decision to stop the prisoner’s letter was lawful under the provisions of the Corrections Act 1989 (Vic), and the respondent had the authority to intercept and cease the delivery of the letter. The court held that the applicant did not have standing to bring the claim, as the decision did not affect their legal rights or interests. The court further found that the matter was essentially academic, as the decision had already been reversed and the letter was delivered to the intended recipient. The court concluded that making any declarations or orders in this case would not serve any practical purpose, and the proceeding was dismissed as an academic question.

The court’s reasoning was based on the premise that the decision to intercept and stop the delivery of the letter was within the respondent’s statutory authority under the Corrections Act 1989 (Vic). The court held that the applicant did not have standing to bring the claim, as the decision did not affect their legal rights or interests. The court also found that the matter was essentially academic, as the decision had already been reversed and the letter was delivered to the intended recipient. The court concluded that making any declarations or orders in this case would not serve any practical purpose, and the proceeding was dismissed as an academic question. The court did not make any declarations or orders in this case.

Orders