JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 July 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 August 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Corrections Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 338

---

Practice and Procedure – vexatious litigant – prisoner – freedom of information request – documents on prison intelligence information system about prisoner personally and his imprisonment – categorical refusal of request – proposed application for review to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether would be abuse of process – whether foredoomed to fail - Supreme Court Act 1986, s 21(4) – Corrections Act 1986, s 30.

Administrative Law – freedom of information – request by prisoner – documents on prison intelligence information system about prisoner personally and his imprisonment – categorical refusal of request – proposed application for review to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – whether all documents as described in request are exempt in nature – whether access could be given to edited copies with exempt matter deleted – identifying nature of the documents from the request – interpreting and applying legislation consistently with its objects – Freedom of Information Act 1982, ss 3(1) and (2), 16(1), 25, 25A(5), 30(1), 31(1), 33(1), 35(1), 38 and 50(4) – Corrections Act 1986, s 30.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	Self-represented	–
For the respondent	Ms P Knowles	Ms J Kummrow, Victorian Government Solicitors Office

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

In 1987, Julian Knight – then aged 19 years – was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering seven people and other crimes of extreme violence.[1] The court set a minimum non-parole period of 27 years. He becomes eligible for parole in 2014.
[1]R v Knight [1989] VR 705.

To assist in preparing an application for parole, Mr Knight made a freedom of information request for access to documents kept on the prison intelligence information system concerning him personally and his imprisonment. He said he did not want information identifying confidential sources and would accept documents with exempt matter deleted. The request was categorically refused by the Department of Justice (representing Corrections Victoria) on the basis that the documents described were of their nature exempt.

Mr Knight wants to apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for merits review of that refusal. As a vexatious litigant,[2] he cannot commence such a proceeding without the leave of the court. Mr Knight now seeks that leave.
[2]Attorney-General v Knight [2004] VSC 407.

DISCRETION TO GRANT LEAVE TO COMMENCE PROCEEDING

Under s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, the court can grant leave to commence legal proceedings to a vexatious litigant, but it ‘must not be given’ unless the court is satisfied the proposed proceeding ‘will not be an abuse of process.’

When determining whether a proposed proceeding would be an abuse of process, the applicant’s…

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 Corrections Victoria

Details

AGLC: Knight v Corrections Victoria [2010] VSC 338
Case: [2010] VSC 338
Decision Date: 11 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Knight, a prisoner, sought access to documents held by Corrections Victoria, the agency responsible for managing Victoria's prisons, through a freedom of information request. The documents in question were stored on the prison intelligence information system and pertained to Knight himself and his imprisonment. Corrections Victoria categorically refused the request, leading Knight to propose an application for review to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central issues before the court were whether such an application would constitute an abuse of process and whether it would be doomed to fail under the relevant statutes. Specifically, the court had to interpret and apply the Supreme Court Act 1986, s 21(4), and the Corrections Act 1986, s 30, in the context of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

The court examined the nature of the documents requested, considering whether they were exempt from disclosure under the legislation. It assessed whether access to the documents could be granted if the exempt information were redacted. The court also needed to interpret and apply the legislation consistently with its objectives, taking into account the principles outlined in the Freedom of Information Act 1982, sections 3(1) and (2), 16(1), 25, 25A(5), 30(1), 31(1), 33(1), 35(1), 38, and 50(4), alongside the Corrections Act 1986, section 30. The court found that the application for review would likely be deemed an abuse of process and would be doomed to fail, given the categorical refusal of the request and the nature of the documents involved.

The court concluded that the application for review was an abuse of process and would be doomed to fail. It held that the proposed application did not meet the necessary criteria for judicial review and that it would be an improper use of the court's resources. Consequently, the court dismissed Knight's application for leave to apply for judicial review. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative framework governing freedom of information requests and the limitations imposed on prisoners seeking access to such information.

Orders