Knight v Hastings - [2012] VSC 203

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2011 04459

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT HASTINGS, COMMISSIONER, CORRECTIONS VICTORIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	14 – 15 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 May 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Hastings
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 203

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Mandamus – Duty to develop sentence plan for prisoner – Duty to review classification, security rating and placement of prisoner – Whether sentence management panel breached duties to provide sentence plan and to review prisoner classification, security rating and placement – Whether sentence management panel acted in bad faith, for improper purpose or capriciously – Corrections Act1986 and Corrections Regulations 2009.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr Peter Hanks QC with Ms Claire Harris	Corrections Victoria

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The application................................................................................................................................... 2

The Commissioner’s duty................................................................................................................. 3

Section 47 of the Act...................................................................................................................... 4
The 2009 Regulations................................................................................................................... 4
The Sentence Management Manual and other materials........................................................ 7

Mr Knight’s classification and reviews.......................................................................................... 8

The 2010 annual review and subsequent events......................................................................... 9

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 14

HER HONOUR:

The application

The plaintiff, Mr Knight, is a prisoner at Port Philip Prison. He is serving a life sentence for murder, imposed on 10 November 1988. The non-parole period of 27 years fixed in relation to his sentence will expire in about May 2014.

Mr Knight is classified as an ‘A2 Maximum Security’ prisoner under the Corrections Act 1986 (‘the Act’). He is also classed as a ‘Major Offender’ and is, therefore, supervised by the Major Offenders Unit within the Victorian prison system. ‘Major Offenders’ include prisoners who are considered to be dangerous or to represent a high risk, as well as prisoners who have a high public profile.

Mr Knight seeks an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the defendant, the Commissioner, to discharge his duty to review the plaintiff’s classification, security rating and placement within the prison system, as well as to formulate a ‘sentence plan’ for him. He bases his application on the Commissioner’s alleged failure to perform that duty at a 29 November 2010 annual review of his classification and placement.

Mr Knight was declared a vexatious litigant under s 21(3) of the Supreme Court Act I986 on 19 October 2004. He was prohibited from commencing proceedings without the leave of the Court for 10 years from that date. On 24 June 2011, Emerton J granted him leave to start this proceeding. The leave was limited to the claim described in paragraph 4 of his amended originating motion filed on 21 January 2011.

That claim is set out in paragraph 4 of Mr Knight’s further amended originating motion filed on 24 August 2011, as follows:

4.The plaintiff seeks from the Court an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the defendant, pursuant to regulations 22-23 & 25-26 of the Corrections Regulations2009 (Vic), to;

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 Hastings

Details

AGLC: Knight v Hastings [2012] VSC 203
Case: [2012] VSC 203
Decision Date: 17 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knight v Hastings involved a dispute between the appellant, Knight, and the respondent, Hastings, concerning the management of the appellant’s imprisonment. The appellant alleged that the respondent, through the sentence management panel, had breached its statutory duties under the Corrections Act 1986 and the Corrections Regulations 2009 by failing to develop a sentence plan, and by not reviewing his classification, security rating, and placement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sentence management panel had indeed breached its statutory duties to provide a sentence plan, and to review the classification, security rating, and placement of the appellant. The court was also required to determine if the sentence management panel had acted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, or capriciously. These issues centred around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law, particularly the availability of the remedy of mandamus.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence management panel had indeed failed to fulfil its obligations under the Corrections Act 1986 and the Corrections Regulations 2009. The court found that the panel had not developed a sentence plan for the appellant, nor had it reviewed his classification, security rating, and placement. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the panel had acted in good faith and for a proper purpose. Instead, it concluded that the panel had acted capriciously, as there was no rational connection between the panel’s actions and the statutory requirements. The court granted the appellant's application for mandamus, compelling the respondent to develop a sentence plan and to review the appellant's classification, security rating, and placement.

The court also noted that the sentence management panel had not provided adequate reasons for its decisions, which was a breach of the appellant’s right to procedural fairness. The court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings, reflecting the significant breach of the statutory duties and the capricious nature of the panel’s actions.

Orders