Knight v Assafiri - [2020] VSC 439

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2019 03572

JULIAN KNIGHT	Proposed Plaintiff
v
ALI ASSAFIRI (in his capacity as Acting Deputy General Manager of Port Phillip Prison)	Proposed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers, pursuant to s 63 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Assafiri
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 439

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – General litigation restraint order – Application for leave to commence proceeding seeking declarations against prison manager – Common law right of access to the courts – Whether proposed proceeding shown to be not vexatious or to have reasonable grounds – Application refused – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), ss 54, 55, 56.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Proposed Plaintiff	No appearance
For the Proposed Defendant	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

Julian Knight is a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison where he is serving a life sentence for seven counts of murder and 46 counts of attempted murder, committed by him at Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill on 9 August 1987.[1] In 2004, he was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).[2] Since 2016, Mr Knight has been subject to an indefinite general litigation restraint order made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), which precludes him from commencing a proceeding in any Victorian court or tribunal, without leave.[3]
[1]R v Knight [1989] VR 705.
[2]Attorney-General v Knight [2004] VSC 407.
[3]Attorney- General for the State of Victoria v Knight [2016] VSC 488.

Mr Knight has applied under s 54 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act for leave to commence a proceeding in the Supreme Court against Ali Assafiri, the Acting Deputy Manager of Port Phillip Prison. The proposed proceeding is a claim for the following declarations:

1.   A declaration that the instruction by the defendant to prison staff at Port Phillip Prison that requests by the plaintiff to fax or email legal documents to the courts or to lawyers must first be submitted to a unit supervisor and then to a prison manager, amounts to an impermissible “prior ventilation” rule that infringes the plaintiff’s common law right of unimpeded access to the courts.
2.   A declaration that the instruction of the defendant to prison staff at Port Phillip Prison that requests by the plaintiff to print documents must be restricted to the monthly printing of legal documents contained on the laptop computer that the plaintiff has been given access to, as opposed to the entitlement of other prisoners to have legal and non-legal documents printed on a twice weekly basis, amounts to an impermissible impediment to the plaintiff’s common law right of unimpeded access to the courts.
3.   A declaration that the failure of the defendant to restore the Port Phillip Prison library’s computer server containing the library’s electronic legal resources (Butterworths…

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 Assafiri

Details

AGLC: Knight v Assafiri [2020] VSC 439
Case: [2020] VSC 439
Decision Date: 21 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Knight versus Assafiri, the applicant sought leave to commence a proceeding against the respondent, who was the manager of a prison, seeking declarations regarding access to the courts. The application was brought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic), which governs the court’s power to restrain vexatious litigation. The central issue before the court was whether the proposed proceeding was shown to be not vexatious or to have reasonable grounds, as required by the statute. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had satisfied the criteria to obtain leave to commence the proceeding.

The court examined the applicant's previous litigation history, finding a pattern of vexatious conduct. Despite the applicant’s assertion of a common law right of access to the courts, the court concluded that the proposed proceeding was vexatious, given the applicant’s history of similar claims that lacked merit. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proceeding had reasonable grounds or was not vexatious, as mandated by sections 54, 55, and 56 of the Act. Consequently, the application for leave to commence the proceeding was refused.

Following this decision, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application. The court emphasised the importance of the Vexatious Proceedings Act in protecting the integrity of the judicial system by preventing the misuse of legal processes. The refusal of leave to proceed and the imposition of costs underscored the court’s stance on curbing frivolous litigation.

Orders