Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Anderson

Knight v Anderson

Case [2007] VSC 278 1 August 2007

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Order in Nature of Mandamus

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9363 of 2006

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
KELVIN ANDERSON	Defendant

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 and 26 June 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 August 2007~~(First revision dated 2 August 2007)~~
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Anderson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 278	First revision: 2 August 2007 Second revision: 4 February 2008

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious litigant – prisoner - sentencing plan and access to education and rehabilitation – letter to victim - application for leave to commence proceeding – order in nature of mandamus to formulate plan and provide access – application for leave refused – prison authorities have no duty of the kind alleged – applicant recently moved to mainstream location – annual sentence review shortly due – issues will be there considered – proceeding would be foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process - mandatory injunction to permit sending of letter – application granted on conditions – proceeding not foredoomed to fail or otherwise an abuse of process – statutory test for considering leave – prospects of success – question is whether proceeding would be foredoomed to fail, not whether has reasonable grounds – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 21(4) – Corrections Act 1986, ss 20(1), 21(1), 47(1)(o), 47D(1) and (2).

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
For the defendant	Ms D Mortimer SC and Ms C Harris	Nafsika Sahinidis, Solicitor for Corrections Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

Julian Knight is a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison. In 1987, when aged 19, he murdered seven people and attempted to murder many others. Mr Knight pleaded guilty to committing those crimes. A judge of this Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In view of his youth and prospects of rehabilitation, the judge set a minimum term - 27 years. Now aged 39, Mr Knight has served 20 years of that sentence. In 2014 he will turn 46 and become eligible for parole.

From his prison cell Mr Knight has issued many legal proceedings, some of them meritorious, but many of them not. Eventually, in 2004, he was declared a vexatious litigant, so he requires leave from this Court before commencing another proceeding.

Mr Knight has been quiet for a couple of years. But he now wants to issue judicial review proceedings against the prison authorities, and he seeks leave to do so. The orders he seeks would compel the formulation of a sentence plan, and give him access to education. He also seeks orders that would prevent the authorities from stopping letters he wants to send to victims of his crimes. They have seized one such letter which he contends is one of apology and explanation.

There has been a significant recent development. For some years, Mr Knight was in custody at Grevillea Unit, a maximum security protection unit at Barwon Prison. Just before…

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 Knight v Anderson

Details

AGLC: Knight v Anderson [2007] VSC 278
Case: [2007] VSC 278
Decision Date: 1 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knight v Anderson involved a prisoner who sought to bring a proceeding against the prison authorities. The applicant, Knight, sought leave to commence a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel the authorities to formulate a sentencing plan and provide access to education and rehabilitation services. Knight also sought a mandatory injunction to permit the sending of a letter to the victim of his crime. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether Knight was entitled to leave to commence the proceeding and whether the mandatory injunction should be granted. The legal issues centred around the duty of the prison authorities to formulate a sentencing plan and provide access to education and rehabilitation services, as well as the right of the applicant to send a letter to the victim. The court also considered whether the proceeding would be foredoomed to fail or an abuse of process.

The court held that the prison authorities had no duty to formulate a sentencing plan and provide access to education and rehabilitation services, and that the application for leave to commence the proceeding should be refused. The court found that the issues raised by Knight would be considered at his annual sentence review, which was shortly due. The court held that the proceeding would be foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process. However, the court granted the application for a mandatory injunction to permit the sending of the letter to the victim, on certain conditions. The court held that the proceeding was not foredoomed to fail or otherwise an abuse of process, and that the statutory test for considering leave focused on the prospects of success rather than whether the proceeding had reasonable grounds.

The court made an order that Knight’s application for leave to commence the proceeding be dismissed, and that the mandatory injunction be granted on the conditions set out in the judgment.

Orders