Harrison v Commissioner of Corrective Services - [2025] NSWSC 390

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harrison v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2025] NSWSC 390
Hearing dates: 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 24 April 2025
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Dismiss the plaintiff’s application for a stay on the Change of Placement decision made by the defendant on 22 January 2025.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Administrative law – Judicial review – Stay application – Whether a decision of the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW to change the placement of an inmate should be stayed or suspended pending the outcome of substantive proceedings – Whether an order to change the placement of an inmate constitutes a denial of access to the Court to conduct litigation – Where an inmate is ordered to be placed in a different correctional centre with more limited access to technology whilst involved in substantive civil proceedings – Access to computers whilst in a correctional centre for the purposes of conducting civil litigation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW) cl 15
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 59.9(2)

Cases Cited:
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Hamzy [2024] NSWCA 240

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Graham Loughlan Harrison (P)
Commissioner of Corrective Services (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-Represented (P)
D Birch (D)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (D)

File Number(s): 2025/17167
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

Graham Loughlan Harrison (“the plaintiff”) is an inmate at Goulburn Correctional Centre (“Goulburn” or “GCC”).
The plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of 36 years for convictions for a wide range of offences including aggravated sexual assault; indecent assault; sexual intercourse without consent; using an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence; taking or detaining a person with intent to obtain an advantage; producing, disseminating or possessing child abuse material; using a child under 14 years of age to make child abuse material; filming a person in private without consent; and being the owner of massage premises allowing prostitution. The plaintiff’s sentence expires on 20 March 2049, and his earliest possible release date is 20 March 2040.
Since 5 December 2017, the plaintiff has been designated as “Extreme High Security” (“EHS”) pursuant to cl 15 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW). He is presently located in Wing 2 of Goulburn, where his placement status is “Special Management Area – Placement” (“SMAP”).

The Substantive Proceedings

By an Amended Summons filed 17 March 2025, the plaintiff brings proceedings against the Commissioner for Corrective Services (“the Commissioner”) seeking judicial review of the decision to continue his EHS designation.
The final relief he seeks is as follows:

“1.   The decision(s) viz the continuation of the designation of Extreme High Security be quashed by way of certiori.
2.   The Commissioner to revoke the EHS designation by way of mandamus.
3.   A declaration that following the 12 June 2019 Burwood Court outcome, the basis for the designation being imposed no longer exists.”

This substantive proceeding…

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 Harrison 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: [2025] NSWSC 390
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Mr Harrison, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW to change his placement from one correctional centre to another. The application was for a stay or suspension of the decision to change his placement pending the outcome of substantive proceedings. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Commissioner's decision constituted a denial of access to the Court for the purposes of conducting litigation. Specifically, Mr Harrison argued that the relocation to a correctional centre with more limited access to technology would impede his ability to conduct litigation. The Court had to determine whether the decision to change placement should be stayed or suspended until the substantive proceedings were finalised.

The Court considered the principles of access to justice and the proportionality of any interference with the applicant's right to litigate. The Court noted that while the decision to change placement might cause some inconvenience to the applicant, it did not amount to a denial of access to the Court. The Court held that the Commissioner's decision did not constitute a denial of access to the Court, as Mr Harrison would still have access to the necessary resources, albeit potentially less convenient. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the correctional system and ensuring that decisions regarding inmate placement were not unduly influenced by ongoing litigation.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that the decision to change placement did not deny access to the Court. The Court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant. The Court did not see the need for a further paragraph as the orders were clear and straightforward.

Orders