Knight v Governor, Port Phillip Prison - [2014] VSC 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2014 00233

IN THE MATTER of an application for leave pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act1986

BETWEEN:

JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
and
GOVERNOR OF PORT PHILLIP PRISON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23, 31 January 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 January 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Governor, Port Phillip Prison
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 10

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Prisoner – Application for leave to issue writ of habeas corpus – Applicant placed in solitary confinement following alleged incident between applicant prisoner and another prisoner –Impact on applicant’s ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings – Seeking release from solitary confinement to usual cell and prison conditions – Application of writ of habeas corpus to prisoners – Whether proposed proceeding would be an abuse of process – Leave refused – Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v New South Wales (1995) 38 NSWLR 622 – Behrooz v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 219 CLR 486 – Potier v Ruddock [2008] NSWC 153 – Potier v General Manager, MRRC (unreported, High Court, Heydon J, S466 of 2008, 20 February 2009) – R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; ex parte Hague [1992] 1 AC 58 – Corrections Act 1986 s 54A – Corrections Regulations 2009 reg 27.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	Ms I Nunnink (solicitor)	Marsh & Maher Lawyers
For the Secretary to the Department of Justice	Ms D Coombs (solicitor), Ms C Harris	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Julian Knight is a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison (‘the prison’). On 20 January 2014, he sought leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus against the Governor of the prison. The matter came before me in the Practice Court on 23 January 2014.

Mr Knight has been declared a vexatious litigant, thus he requires leave of the Court to continue these proceedings.[1]
[1]Supreme Court Act 1986 s 21(3).

Mr Knight, at the time of making the application to the Court and since 16 January 2014, had been separated, initially to his own cell, pending investigation into an alleged assault of a prisoner on Wednesday 15 January 2014. Mr Knight was, on 17 January 2014, separated from his own cell to the Charlotte Management Unit and a high security cell.

Mr Knight’s application to the Court was supported by an unsworn affidavit dated 20 January 2014. Mr Knight stated it was unsworn because of an inability to see a Legal Aid lawyer until 28 January 2014. For the purposes of the application, Ms Nunnink, who appeared for the prison Governor, and Ms Coombs, who with leave appeared on the application for the Secretary of the Department of Justice, took no point as to the unsworn nature of the affidavit. There was no concession that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knight v Governor, Port Phillip Prison 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] VSC 10
Decision Date: 31 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knight v Governor, Port Phillip Prison involved a prisoner, Knight, who sought leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his placement in solitary confinement. Knight alleged that this confinement negatively impacted his ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings. The application was made in the context of an alleged incident between Knight and another prisoner, and the Governor of Port Phillip Prison opposed the application. The central legal issue was whether the writ of habeas corpus could be applied to prisoners in such circumstances, and if the proposed proceeding would amount to an abuse of process.

The court considered the established principles governing the application of the writ of habeas corpus. It noted that this remedy is traditionally used to challenge unlawful detention but recognised that its application to prisoners involves unique considerations. The court examined whether Knight's placement in solitary confinement was unlawful and whether his ability to prepare for his legal proceedings constituted a substantial interference with his legal rights. The court also weighed whether proceeding with the application would represent an abuse of the legal process, given the circumstances of the alleged incident.

After considering the relevant legal principles and the specific facts of the case, the court determined that Knight's application would not be granted. It concluded that the proposed proceeding would be an abuse of process, considering the context of the alleged incident between Knight and another prisoner. The court found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in this context. Consequently, leave to issue the writ was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave refused

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

Full text does not contain this section.