Hzaife v Manager of the Therapeutic CUBIT Program, Corrective Services NSW; Bilal v Manager of the Therapeutic CUBIT Program, Corrective Services NSW

In the case of Hzaife v Manager of the Therapeutic CUBIT Program, Corrective Services NSW, and Bilal v Manager of the Therapeutic CUBIT Program, Corrective Services NSW, the primary issue before the court was whether the defendants' participation in a therapeutic rehabilitation program, the CUBIT Program, was unjustly impeded by a decision that would result in the length of the program exceeding their remaining non-parole period. The applicants contended that the decision to prioritise entry into the program by the earliest possible release date, despite the program's duration exceeding their non-parole period, contravened the principles of procedural fairness. The applicants sought a judicial review of the decision to deny them entry into the program under these circumstances.

The legal issues encompassed whether the decision to prioritise entry into the CUBIT Program by the earliest possible release date, thereby extending the program duration beyond the applicants' remaining non-parole period, breached the principles of procedural fairness. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the decision-makers were required to consider the applicants' individual circumstances, including their remaining non-parole periods, when prioritising entry into the program. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the decision to deny entry into the program constituted an unjustifiable interference with the applicants' right to a fair process.

The court found that the decision to prioritise entry into the CUBIT Program by the earliest possible release date, resulting in the program's duration exceeding the applicants' non-parole periods, did indeed contravene the principles of procedural fairness. The court held that the decision-makers were required to consider the applicants' individual circumstances, including their remaining non-parole periods, when determining the timing of entry into the program. By failing to do so, the decision-makers acted in a manner that was unfair and unjustifiable. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the applicants, quashing the decision to deny them entry into the program. The orders included a direction for the decision-makers to reconsider the applicants' entry into the CUBIT Program, taking into account their remaining non-parole periods and other relevant individual circumstances.