PATRICIA SELLMAN (in her capacity as General Manager of Port Phillip Prison)
Proposed Respondent
---
S ECI 2018 03024
BETWEEN:
JULIAN KNIGHT
Applicant
and
EMMA CASSAR (in her capacity as Corrections Commissioner)
Proposed Respondent
---
S CI 2013 06673
BETWEEN:
JULIAN KNIGHT
Applicant
and
ADULT PAROLE BOARD
Proposed Respondent
---
S CI 2013 02362
BETWEEN:
JULIAN KNIGHT
Applicant
and
GREG WILSON (in his capacity as Director of the Department of Justice)
Proposed Respondent
---
S CI 2013 02043
BETWEEN:
JULIAN KNIGHT
Applicant
and
ADULT PAROLE BOARD
Proposed Respondent
---
JUDGE:
CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
Not applicable. Matters dealt with on the papers.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
5 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
Knight v Sellman & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2020] VSC 320
---
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT – Applications for leave to commence proceedings – Prisoner – Proposed claims for judicial review of administrative decisions relating to parole – Decisions overtaken by events – Futility – Applications for leave refused – Supreme Court Act1986 (Vic) s 21 (repealed); Vexatious Proceedings Act2014 (Vic) Part 8.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT – Application for leave to commence proceedings – Prisoner – Proposed claim for injunction against prison manager for provision of computer access – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Common law right of access to the courts – Human right to fair trial – Proposed proceeding misconceived in law and unsupported in fact – Constitution Act1975 (Vic) s 85; Vexatious Proceedings Act2014 (Vic) Part 8; Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 7, 24(1), 38, 39.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
No appearances
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction and overview
The applicant, Mr Julian Knight, is a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison (‘PPP’). He is also a very active vexatious litigant. Since 19 October 2004, he has been prohibited by orders of this Court made under statute from commencing a legal proceeding in a Victorian court or tribunal without prior leave.[1] At present, the statute of principal relevance is the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) (‘VPA’). On 17 February 2020, Mr Knight filed in this Court an application under s 54 of the VPA for leave to commence a proceeding in this Court. The application has been styled Knight v Sellman (S ECI 2020/00990) (‘Knight v Sellman’). That matter was referred to me for determination. In considering it, I noted that there were six other applications by Mr Knight for leave to commence proceedings currently pending in this Court and that, in one way or another, all of them had connections with Knight v Sellman.
It is appropriate for the Court to deal now with four of those six other pending applications for leave to proceed, as well as with the application…
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 Sellman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Knight v Sellman [2020] VSC 320
Case
[2020] VSC 320
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Knight v Sellman, the applicant, Knight, sought leave to commence several proceedings against the respondent, Sellman, the manager of a prison. Knight, who was a prisoner, proposed claims for judicial review of administrative decisions related to his parole and a claim for an injunction against Sellman for the provision of computer access. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether Knight's proposed claims were vexatious or frivolous, and if they should be dismissed under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic).
The court considered the nature of the proposed claims and whether they were misconceived in law or unsupported in fact. The court examined the decisions related to Knight's parole, which had been overtaken by events, making the claims for judicial review futile. The court also assessed whether the proposed injunction claim was misconceived in law and unsupported in fact. The court concluded that the proposed proceeding for an injunction was misconceived as there was no common law right of access to the courts or a human right to fair trial that would support such a claim. Additionally, the court held that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the proposed injunction claim.
The Supreme Court refused Knight's applications for leave to commence the proposed proceedings, finding them to be vexatious. The court relied on the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) and the repealed Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 21, as well as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The court also found that the proposed injunction claim was misconceived in law and not supported by facts, and that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications, and no further proceedings were permitted.