Knight v Wise - [2014] VSC 639

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2013 3623

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
RODERICK WISE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CORRECTIONS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Wise
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 639

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Corrections to refuse the plaintiff’s application for an in-cell computer – Scope of the powers contained in section 21(1) of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) – Whether defendant took into account an irrelevant consideration namely, the plaintiff’s status as a declared vexatious litigant – Whether the defendant’s decision was made for an improper purpose, namely to hinder the plaintiff’s prosecution of his civil proceedings – Application dismissed – Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd 1986 162 CLR 24 - East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning (2008) 23 VR 605 - Moreland City Council v Minister for Planning [2014] VSC 468.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person	N/A
For the Defendant	Mr P R D Gray QC with Ms C M Harris	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Knight is serving a life sentence at Port Phillip Prison. Since August 2006, he has made no less than 18 applications on various grounds for a personal ‘in-cell’ computer. Most recently, on 8 May 2013, he wrote to the defendant, the Deputy Commissioner Corrections, seeking permission to purchase his own in-cell computer on the grounds that he required it for the purposes of his legal proceedings and for education and training, and because he was preparing his own suggested parole plan for submission to the Adult Parole Board.

On 15 August 2013, the defendant denied Mr Knight permission to purchase an in-cell computer (the ‘Decision’).

Mr Knight now seeks judicial review of the Decision.

Because Mr Knight was declared a vexatious litigant in 2004 pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act1986 (Vic), Mr Knight required the leave of the Court to bring the proceeding.[1]
[1]The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) came into operation on 31 October 2014 and repealed s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). Orders made under the Supreme Court Act 1986 declaring a person to be a vexatious litigant are taken to be general litigation restraint orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic).

On 7 March 2014, T. Forrest J ordered that Mr Knight have leave to commence a proceeding to seek relief substantially in the form set out in paragraphs 2(e) and (h) of his Amended Originating Motion dated 27 August 2013.

The grounds of review in those paragraphs are as follows:

(e)the defendant took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the plaintiff’s status as a declared vexatious litigant,
(h)the defendant’s decision was made for an improper purpose, namely to hinder the plaintiff’s prosecution of the proceedings and proposed proceedings that…

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 Wise

Details

AGLC: Knight v Wise [2014] VSC 639
Case: [2014] VSC 639
Decision Date: 15 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Knight v Wise is a case before the court regarding the plaintiff's application for an in-cell computer which was refused by the Deputy Commissioner, Corrections. The plaintiff sought judicial review of this decision, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider relevant factors and took into account irrelevant considerations. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that the decision was made for an improper purpose, namely to hinder the plaintiff's prosecution of his civil proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision was legally sound and whether the plaintiff's rights were violated.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Deputy Commissioner took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the plaintiff's status as a declared vexatious litigant, and whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision was made for an improper purpose. The court considered the scope of the powers contained in section 21(1) of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) and whether the Deputy Commissioner exercised these powers in a lawful manner. The court also considered the principles of administrative law and whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision was made in accordance with these principles.

The court found that the Deputy Commissioner did not take into account an irrelevant consideration or make the decision for an improper purpose. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner exercised their powers in accordance with the law and that the decision was not unlawful. The court relied on the principles established in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd, East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning, and Moreland City Council v Minister for Planning. The court held that the application for judicial review was without merit and dismissed the application.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's decision was lawful and that the plaintiff's rights were not violated. The court held that the application for judicial review was an abuse of process and that the plaintiff should not be awarded costs.

Orders