FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Knight v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 926
File number(s): VID 595 of 2021 Judgment of: ANDERSON J Date of judgment: 10 August 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory application for injunctions ordering respondents to provide applicant with computer access, printing facilities and access to various legal databases and websites – Common law right of access to the courts – Where the applicant’s evidence and conduct of interlocutory application does not establish that he has been denied effective access to the courts – Application refused Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Corrections Act 1986 (Vic)
Corrections Regulations 2019 (Vic)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Brazel v Westin [2013] VSC 527
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis (2018) 98 NSWLR 113
Fyfe v South Australia [2000] SASC 84
Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 506
Rich v Groningen (1987) 95 A Crim R 272
R v Rich(No 2) [2008] VSC 141
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Number of paragraphs: 81 Date of hearing: 27 July 2023 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr M J Hooper Solicitor for the First Respondent: Gilchrist Connell Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr M Hosking Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office ORDERS
VID 595 of 2021 BETWEEN: JULIAN KNIGHT
Applicant
AND: G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
First Respondent
CORRECTIONS VICTORIA
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ANDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 AUGUST 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application for interlocutory relief in his amended originating application filed on 26 September 2022 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, to be fixed by way of an agreed lump sum or, in default of agreement, by way of a lump sum fixed by a Registrar.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ANDERSON J
INTRODUCTION
By his amended originating application filed on 26 September 2022, the applicant, Mr Knight, sought interlocutory relief requiring the respondents to:
(1)provide him with daily access to a computer and printing facilities;
(2)reconnect “various electronic legal databases (particularly, LexisNexis Butterworths Unreported Judgments Disks 1-4 and the Thomson Lawbook Co Federal Cases database)” (together, Relevant Databases) to the Port Phillip Prison (PPP) library computer server; and
(3)provide him with access to three websites, namely (Court’s website), (Federal Register of Legislation) and (together, Relevant Websites).
In support of his interlocutory application, the applicant tendered two affidavits dated 19 September 2022 (Knight First Affidavit) and 17 July 2023 (Knight Second Affidavit).
In response to the applicant’s application for interlocutory relief, the first respondent (
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Knight v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FCA 926
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Knight had been prevented from having effective access to the court in the proceeding. The court noted that while Knight did not assert a statutory right to the requested facilities under the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) or any other legislation, he contended that the court should make the orders sought to give effect to a common law right of unimpeded access to the courts. The court considered the need to avoid interfering with prison management decisions made pursuant to relevant acts and regulations, and examined the evidence presented by Knight regarding his current access to computers, printing facilities, and legal resources. The court found that Knight had access to computers in the prison library, a booking system for a laptop, assistance for printing documents, specified legal resources, and the ability to request additional legal resources. The court also noted that Knight had filed written submissions, affidavits, and cited numerous authorities during the interlocutory application.
The court dismissed Knight's application for interlocutory relief, finding that his evidence and conduct of the interlocutory application did not establish that he had been denied effective access to the courts. The court held that Knight's current access to computers, printing facilities, and legal resources was sufficient to meet his needs in the proceeding. The court ordered that Knight's application for interlocutory relief be dismissed and that Knight pay the respondents' costs of the application.
This case highlights the court's reluctance to interfere with prison management decisions and the importance of ensuring that prisoners have effective access to the courts while balancing the need to maintain order and security within prisons. The court found that Knight's current access to resources was adequate and that the application for interlocutory relief was not warranted. The decision also serves as a reminder that prisoners must establish a genuine need for additional resources to ensure their access to the courts.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s application for interlocutory relief in his amended originating application filed on 26 September 2022 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application, to be fixed by way of an agreed lump sum or, in default of agreement, by way of a lump sum fixed by a Registrar.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Although the above comments were made in the context of applications for judicial review of a decision of a prison authority, in my opinion, they are relevant to the Court’s consideration of orders or directions that might be necessary to ensure that a prisoner has access to the courts. CONSIDERATION The applicant does not assert that he has a statutory right under the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) or the Regulations, or any other legislation, to have daily access to computer and printing facilities, or to have access to electronic legal databases or the internet. Rather, the applicant contends that the Court should make the orders that he seeks on the basis that those orders are necessary to give effect to a “common law right of unimpeded access to the court”. For the reasons that follow, the application must be dismissed. The question which will determine this application is whether the applicant has been prevented from having effective access to the Court in this proceeding. In undertaking that assessment, I am conscious of the need to avoid, if possible, interfering with prison management decisions made pursuant to the relevant acts and regulations: Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 506 at [50]; Fyfe v South Australia [2000] SASC 84 at [18]; Brazel at [22]-[23]; see also Knight v Governor, Port Phillip Prison [2014] VSC 10 at [22]. The affidavit evidence, and the applicant’s submissions during the hearing, establish that the applicant presently has access to the following facilities and resources relevant to his access to this Court: (1)the applicant has access to computers in the prison library twice a week for a total of at least 3 hours (see [12], [16] above);(2)the applicant has access to a laptop in the Government Functions area on a booking system, and the prison records record his booking of this laptop for use on a regular basis (see [15] above);(3)the applicant is able to print documents with the assistance of PPP staff (see at [17] above);(4)the applicant has access to the legal resources specified in CR 4.2.3 (see at [19]-[21]); and(5)the applicant is able to request access to additional specific legal resources (see at [19], [22]-[23]). Further, during the course of this interlocutory application: (1)the applicant has written numerous letters to chambers and the respondents; (2)the applicant filed written submissions of ten pages, which cited or quoted the authorities of this Court, the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Victorian Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, the England and Wales High Court, the England and Wales Court of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court;(3)the applicant filed two affidavits – the Knight First Affidavit (237 pages in length, including annexures) and the Second Knight Affidavit (25 pages in length, including annexures); (4)the applicant emailed to chambers a list of authorities in support of his application which referred, in total, to 37 cases; and(5)during the hearing of this application, the applicant referred the Court to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Limited [2021] FCA 502, a case which the applicant submitted dealt with “exactly the same issues” as raised in the underlying proceeding.