Kotzmann v Prison Supervisor E Wang - [2015] VSC 760

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2014 01353

THOMAS SAMUEL KOTZMANN	Plaintiff
v
PRISON SUPERVISOR E. WANG & Others according to the schedule attached	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Kotzmann v Prison Supervisor E Wang & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 760

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Offences whilst in prison — Judicial review — Certiorari and mandamus sought in respect of the laying of charges by prison officers for prison offences and findings of guilt made by prison governor — Whether prisoner denied procedural fairness in the laying of the charges and at hearing — Relief refused — Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) ss 21, 23, 50, 53 — Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) regs 50, 51.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Thomas Kotzmann appeared for himself
For the Defendants	Mr L Brown	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The question in this case is whether prison officers who laid charges against a remand prisoner for prison offences, and the prison manager who heard and determined those charges, exceeded their jurisdiction and denied the prisoner natural justice and procedural fairness in doing so. The prisoner claims that they did.
On 16 March 2014, Roslyn Smith,[1] the operations manager of the Melbourne Remand Centre (MRC), found Mr Thomas Kotzmann[2] guilty of certain prison offences. At that time, Mr Kotzmann was a prisoner on remand at the MRC awaiting trial for criminal charges. The offences were alleged to arise from two incidents, one on 9 December 2013 and the other on 4 January 2014.
[1]The third named defendant.
[2]The plaintiff.
Mr Kotzmann seeks relief in the nature of certiorari to quash Ms Smith’s decision in each case that he had committed the offence, mandamus directing the prison to remove the laying of the charges and the findings of guilt from all prison records, and the return of the $40 imposed on him as penalties. As I will also briefly mention below, Mr Kotzmann has also sought to supplement the grounds for the relief he claims by alleging a failure on the part of Ms Smith to consider various human rights protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘Charter’).
For reasons which appear below, Mr Kotzmann has failed to make out any of the grounds upon which he seeks relief, and the relief claimed is refused.
The statutory scheme
Section 50 of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) (‘the Act’) authorises a prison officer, amongst other available courses, to charge a prisoner with a prison offence. Regulation 50 of the Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) (‘the Regulations’) prescribes prison offences.
The Governor (a term no longer used by Corrections Victoria, who instead use ‘General Manager’) and prison officers are given broad powers and duties. In particular, s 21 of the Act provides that the…

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 Kotzmann v Prison Supervisor E Wang

Details

AGLC: Kotzmann v Prison Supervisor E Wang [2015] VSC 760
Case: [2015] VSC 760
Decision Date: 23 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kotzmann v Prison Supervisor E Wang involved an application for judicial review by a prisoner, Kotzmann, against the decisions of a prison supervisor and a prison governor in relation to charges laid for alleged prison offences. The court was asked to determine whether procedural fairness was afforded to Kotzmann in the process of the charges being laid and during the subsequent hearing of the charges. The application for judicial review sought the issuance of certiorari to quash the decision to lay charges and mandamus to compel the prison authorities to provide a hearing that complied with procedural fairness.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the procedural requirements set out in the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) and the Corrections Regulations 2009 (Vic) were adhered to when the charges were laid against Kotzmann, and whether the hearing process complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court had to examine the statutory provisions and regulations to assess whether the procedural steps were correctly followed and whether any breach of procedural fairness occurred that would render the charges and the findings of guilt unlawful.

The court found that the statutory framework provided adequate procedural protections for prisoners facing charges within the prison system. It held that the processes followed in laying charges and conducting the hearing were consistent with the requirements of the Corrections Act and the regulations. The court concluded that there was no procedural unfairness that would warrant the quashing of the charges or the findings of guilt. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the relief sought was refused. The court held that the statutory provisions and regulations were properly applied, and no procedural error occurred that would justify the intervention of the court.

Orders