Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Wise

Knight v Wise

Case [2011] VSC 313 7 July 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2011 00836

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff (Applicant for leave to bring proceedings)
V
RODERICK WISE (In his capacity as the Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria)	Proposed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 July 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Wise
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 313	1^st revision: 30 January 2012

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Relief sought in the nature of certiorari and mandamus – Denial of prisoner’s application for in-cell computer – Corrections Act 1986 ss 47, 112

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Application for leave to commence proceeding – Whether proposed proceeding doomed to fail – Supreme Court Act 1986 s 21(4) – Leave granted to issue proceeding on limited basis

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person via video link
For the Proposed Defendant	Ms C Harris	Sean Morrison, Solicitor, Legal Services, Department of Justice

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff was imprisoned for murder in 1987. He is serving a life sentence[1] and is not eligible for parole before 2014. He is currently imprisoned at Port Phillip Prison.
[1]R v Knight [1989] VR 705.

On 19 October 2004, Smith J declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.[2] Relevantly, his Honour’s orders provided that the plaintiff “must not without the leave of the court commence, within the period of 10 years from this date, any legal proceedings (whether civil or criminal) in the court.”
[2]Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Knight [2004] VSC 407.

The plaintiff has been attempting, for a number of years, to obtain permission to purchase and maintain a computer in his cell.

In this case, he applies by originating motion and supporting summons, both dated 8 February 2011, for leave pursuant to s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, to commence a proceeding (“the proposed proceeding”) in this Court, against the proposed defendant, the Deputy Commissioner of Corrections Victoria.

In the proposed proceeding, the plaintiff intends to seek:

(a) An order in the nature of certiorari, quashing the proposed defendant’s decision of 22 December 2010 to deny the plaintiff’s “application for access to a personal computer”; and

(b) An order in the nature of mandamus, requiring the proposed defendant to reconsider the plaintiff’s application for access to an in-cell computer, according to law.

The proposed defendant opposes the granting of leave to commence the proposed proceeding, on the ground that it is foredoomed to fail and would therefore be an abuse of process. However, there was no suggestion that the proposed defendant would not be the appropriate defendant, were such a proceeding to be issued.

The plaintiff’s most recent application for access to an in-cell computer was made on 15 July 2010, and denied on 22 December 2010. This was his eleventh such application since 23 August 2006.[3]
[3]The plaintiff’s previous applications were made on…

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 [2011] VSC 313
Case: [2011] VSC 313
Decision Date: 7 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the Knight v Wise case were Knight, a prisoner, and Wise, the Minister for Corrective Services. Knight had sought relief in the form of certiorari and mandamus against Wise for denying his application for an in-cell computer. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of sections 47 and 112 of the Corrections Act 1986, which govern the conditions of imprisonment and the discretion of the Minister in relation to prisoner applications. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Minister's denial of Knight's application for an in-cell computer was lawful and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Minister had exercised their discretion appropriately and if there were any grounds for judicial intervention through certiorari or mandamus. Another issue was whether Knight's application to commence the proceeding should be granted, considering his status as a vexatious litigant, under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The Supreme Court considered the statutory framework and the relevant case law to determine the proper exercise of discretion by the Minister. The court found that the Minister had not acted unlawfully in denying Knight's application and that there were no grounds for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. However, the court granted Knight leave to commence the proceeding on a limited basis, acknowledging the potential merits of his claims while also recognising the risk of vexatious litigation. This decision balanced the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process with the importance of providing a remedy for legitimate grievances.

The final orders of the court were that Knight was granted leave to commence the proceeding on a limited basis, with certain conditions imposed to manage the risk of vexatious litigation. The court did not issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari, as it found that the Minister's decision was not unlawful. This outcome allowed Knight to pursue his claims while also ensuring that the court's resources were not unduly burdened by repetitive or frivolous litigation.

Orders