Knight v Hastings - [2011] VSC 332

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9420 of 2003

JULIAN KNIGHT	Proposed Plaintiff (Applicant for leave)
v
ROBERT HASTINGS (in his capacity as Commissioner for Corrections Victoria)	Proposed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 June 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 June 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Hastings
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 332

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Application for leave to commence a legal proceeding – Proposed claim for judicial review against the Commissioner for Corrections Victoria – Requirement to carry out a classification review and formulate a sentence management plan – Whether proposed proceeding is foredoomed to fail – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 21(4) – Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) s 47(1)(l) – Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) regs 22, 23, 25, 26.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Proposed Plaintiff (Applicant for leave)	In person
For the Proposed Defendant	Ms C.M. Harris	Corrections Victoria
For the Attorney-General (Victoria)	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

On 19 October 2004, Smith J made an order under s 21(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) that Mr Knight must not, without the leave of the Court, commence a legal proceeding within 10 years. Section 21(4) provides that leave must not be given unless the Court is satisfied the proposed proceeding would not be an abuse of process.

Mr Knight now seeks leave to commence a proceeding for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Commissioner for Corrections to comply with what he says is the statutory obligation to carry out a classification review and formulate a Sentence Management Plan for him.

Mr Knight submits that there has been no review and there has been no formulation of a Sentence Management Plan for the purposes of s 47(1)(l) of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) and regulations 22 to 23, and 25 to 26 of the Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) (the ‘2009 Regulations’). He submits that the decision of the Major Offenders Review Panel made in respect of him on 29 November 2010 does not meet the statutory obligations referred to.

In an application such as this, the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Court.[1] In considering whether a proceeding would be an abuse of process, it is relevant to consider its prospects of success, but only in a limited fashion. The issue is whether the proceeding is foredoomed to fail, not whether it has reasonable grounds.[2] I am therefore concerned with whether Mr Knight’s proposed proceeding would be foredoomed to fail or whether it could constitute some other recognised form of abuse of process.
[1]Phillip Morris Ltd v Attorney-General (Vic) (2006) 14 VR 538, 562.
[2]Ibid 556.

As Bell J said in Knight v Anderson,[3] if the Court decides a proceeding would not be an abuse of process because it would not be foredoomed to fail, it cannot treat an absence of reasonable grounds as…

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 [2011] VSC 332
Case: [2011] VSC 332
Decision Date: 24 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Knight, an inmate, brought a claim against Hastings, the Commissioner for Corrections Victoria, seeking leave to commence a legal proceeding for judicial review. The application arose from Knight's contention that he was not appropriately classified, and as a result, he was denied the formulation of a sentence management plan. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court had to determine whether the proposed proceeding was likely to be unsuccessful.

The primary legal issues the court considered were whether Knight's proposed claim for judicial review was foredoomed to fail, and whether the court should grant leave to proceed under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 21(4). The court also examined relevant statutory provisions, including the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) s 47(1)(l) and the Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) regs 22, 23, 25, and 26, to assess the merits of Knight's claim.

In its decision, the court found that the proposed proceeding was indeed foredoomed to fail. It determined that Knight's claim did not meet the necessary threshold, as the classification and sentence management plan requirements were adequately addressed within the statutory framework. Consequently, the court refused Knight's application for leave to commence the judicial review proceeding. The court emphasised that Knight's grievances were subject to internal review processes within the Department of Justice and Regulation, and thus, the proposed judicial review was not warranted.

The court's final orders were that Knight's application for leave to commence a judicial review proceeding was dismissed, and the costs of the application were awarded to Hastings. The court also noted that Knight was considered a vexatious litigant under the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 21(4), which may impact future legal proceedings he may wish to initiate.

Orders