Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services - [2024] NSWSC 1090

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2024] NSWSC 1090
Hearing dates: 9, 13 and 26 August 2024
Date of orders: 28 August 2024
Decision date: 28 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:
See [53]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – court administration – court powers – control of proceedings – where plaintiff is a prisoner in the High Risk Management Correctional Centre at Goulburn – plaintiff previously had access to eight storage tubs in his cell to store legal documents – where plaintiff subsequently restricted to accessing one storage tub in his cell at any given time in compliance with Custodial Operations Policy and Procedures – where plaintiff seeks continuous access to all eight storage tubs in his cell to assist him prepare for legal proceedings – where plaintiff also seeks access to a laptop with word processing capabilities to prepare for legal proceedings – whether the orders are necessary to prevent an abuse of the Court’s process or to ensure a fair trial in the substantive proceedings

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 271
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 23, 69
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014

Cases Cited:
Brazel v Westin & Anor [2013] VSC 527
Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2016] NSWCA 186
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis (2018) 98 NSWLR 113; [2018] NSWCA 143
Fyfe v State of South Australia [2000] SASC 84
Ghasemi v NSW Department of Corrective Services [2019] NSWSC 207
Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2024] NSWSC 264
Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services (2022) 107 NSWLR 544; [2022] NSWCA 16
Jarvie v Magistrates Court (Vic) [1995] 1 VR 84
Kelleher v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [1999] NSWSC 86
McKane v Commissioner for Corrective Services of New South Wales (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1060
Miles v R [2012] NSWCCA 88
Modica v Commissioner for Corrective Services (1994) 77 A Crim R 82
Muir v The Queen [2004] HCA 21; (2008) 78 ALJR 780
Patsalis v The State of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 267
R v Ngo (2002) 57 NSWLR 55; [2003] NSWCCA 82
R v Rich (No 2) (2008) 184 A Crim R 161; [2008] VSC 141
Ragg v Magistrates Court (Vic) and Another (2008) 179 A Crim R 568; [2008] VSC 1
Rich v Groningen (1997) 95 A Crim R 272
Romolo v R [2016] NSWCCA 240

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Bassam Hamzy (Plaintiff)
Commissioner of Corrective Services (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Emmett SC with E Jones (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/39910
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Bassam Hamzy is an inmate presently housed in Unit 8 of the High Risk Management Correctional Centre (HRMCC) at Goulburn. That centre was previously and still is known and referred to as the High Risk Management Unit (HRMU).
By his second amended summons dated 29 May 2023 (and filed on 27 June 2023),…

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 Hamzy v Commissioner of 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: [2024] NSWSC 1090
Decision Date: 28 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Hamzy, is a prisoner in the High Risk Management Correctional Centre at Goulburn, who brought a proceeding against the Commissioner of Corrective Services, seeking to prevent an abuse of the court's process and ensure a fair trial in the substantive proceedings. The plaintiff had previously had access to eight storage tubs in his cell to store legal documents. However, his access was subsequently restricted to one storage tub in his cell at any given time in compliance with the Custodial Operations Policy and Procedures. The plaintiff sought continuous access to all eight storage tubs in his cell to assist him in preparing for his legal proceedings. He also sought access to a laptop with word processing capabilities to prepare for his legal proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether the orders sought by the plaintiff were necessary to prevent an abuse of the court's process or to ensure a fair trial in the substantive proceedings. The court considered the plaintiff's need for access to his legal documents and the facilities necessary to prepare for his legal proceedings. The court also considered the security and operational requirements of the correctional centre and the policy and procedures in place to manage them.

The court found that the plaintiff's need for access to all eight storage tubs in his cell was not necessary to prevent an abuse of the court's process or to ensure a fair trial in the substantive proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff's access to one storage tub in his cell at any given time was sufficient to prepare for his legal proceedings. The court also found that the plaintiff's need for a laptop with word processing capabilities was not necessary to prevent an abuse of the court's process or to ensure a fair trial in the substantive proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff could prepare for his legal proceedings using the facilities available to him in the correctional centre.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application and made no orders.

Orders