Lawson v Prisoners Review Board Western Australia - [2023] WASC 33

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   LAWSON -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2023] WASC 33
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   2 FEBRUARY 2023
DELIVERED          :   14 FEBRUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1795 of 2020
BETWEEN:   SHAUN PHILLIP LAWSON
Applicant

AND

PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for judicial review - Where the application was placed on the Inactive Cases List - Where the applicant failed to take steps after being given notice of being placed on the Inactive Cases List for six months - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 4A r 25 (1)(b), O 4A r 28(1), O 56 r 2(4)

Result:

Application dismissed under O 4A r 28(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	N/A

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

TOTTLE J:

The purpose of these short reasons is to explain to the applicant, a litigant in person, the outcome of his application for judicial review.
Before explaining why his application has been dismissed I wish to emphasise to the applicant that the application had no prospect of providing what he wanted which was financial compensation. As had been explained to the applicant in November 2021, to obtain compensation the applicant needed to commence an action for damages by filing a writ of summons.
On 1 September 2020 the applicant filed an application for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia (the Board) made on 23 December 2019 refusing to grant the applicant parole. When the application was filed the applicant was serving a custodial sentence.
The application was not supported by an affidavit as required by O 56 r 2(4) of Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) for applications made outside the limitation period. The applicant attached to his application a number of records relating to the applicant's prospects of successful rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. On the basis of those materials the applicant's grievance may be summarised as follows. The Individual Management Plans prepared by the prison authorities in respect of the applicant recorded that he had a low risk of re-offending, that he had no unmet treatment needs and he had a good prison record but when reviewed for parole purposes, the Board found that he had outstanding treatment needs. The applicant's release on parole was deferred and the applicant's complaint is that it should not have been.
At a hearing before Allanson J on 22 November 2021 the applicant said, in effect, that the relief that he sought was compensation for the time he was incarcerated when he should not have been and for post‑traumatic stress disorder which he developed.[1] Allanson J explained that it was not possible to obtain damages in judicial review proceedings and that it appeared that there was no practical benefit to be derived by the applicant seeking judicial review of the Board's 23 December 2019 decision. Allanson J adjourned the application to enable the applicant to obtain legal advice.
[1] ts 3.
On 20 April 2022 Allanson J directed the applicant to attend before him to show cause why the application should not be put on the Inactive Cases List. When the matter came on for hearing on 29 June 2022 the applicant sought an adjournment on the grounds, in effect, that he had been expecting a lawyer to file a notice of acting. Allanson J adjourned the matter until 27 July 2022.
On 27 July 2022 Allanson J dismissed an oral application made by the applicant for Allanson J to recuse himself and placed the application on the Inactive Cases List. His Honour explained the consequences of the application being on the Inactive Cases List to the applicant.
On 5 August 2022 the Principal Registrar, in accordance with O 4A r 25(1)(b) gave the applicant written notice that his application had been place on the Inactive Cases List. The notice explained the consequences of the application being on the Inactive Cases List.
On 28 August 2022 the applicant filed an affidavit sworn in support of an application to remove the application from the Inactive Cases List. The affidavit read as follows:
This document hereby is an Affidavit requested by the Supreme Court for the purposed to respectfully seek leave to take my Application for Judicial Review CIV 1795/2020, off the inactive case list.
I respectfully request for Leave to have this matter taken off the inactive cases list, to be listed for Hearing at the earliest possible time, on an expedited basis, given the time that has passed since the filing of the application,
I hereby respectfully submit this Affidavit in support of the Application for leave to be taken off the inactive cases and placed on priority active cases list.
On 6 September 2022 at a hearing before me the applicant said that he intended to file a formal affidavit stating the facts upon which his application was based. I explained to the applicant that it was necessary for him to obtain an order that the application be removed from the Inactive Cases List and that to do that he needed to demonstrate what he was going to do to prosecute his application. I made an order that the applicant file and serve an affidavit in support of his application by 6 October 2022 and adjourned the hearing until 13 October 2022. I explained to the applicant that his case would remain on the Inactive Cases List and that it was necessary for the applicant to take steps within six months of the matter being placed on the Inactive Cases List. I also expressed my concern to the applicant that the application he had commenced would not achieve what he wanted to achieve and that he should give thought to whether he wished to pursue the application.
The applicant did not file a further affidavit. At the applicant's request the hearing on 13 October 2022 was adjourned as were subsequent re‑listed hearings.
The matter came back before me on 2 February 2023. At that hearing the applicant said that he had obtained legal advice and that his lawyers had said he should make two requests, first, that the Board file a statement of facts, issues and contentions and second, that the court provide a progress report. My attempts to explain the position to the applicant by reference to what had occurred at the earlier hearings were met with expressions by the applicant of frustration with the justice system. The applicant referred to the court as a government department and said that it had provided him with no direction. The language used by the applicant made it clear there was no further possibility of useful dialogue and I adjourned the hearing.
Order 4A r 28(1) provides:
If a case is on the Inactive Cases List for 6 continuous months after the date on which notice is given under rule 25(1)(b) to the parties to the case, the case is taken to have been dismissed for want of prosecution.
The applicant's case was on the Inactive Cases List for a continuous period of six months between 6 August 2022 and 6 February 2023 and, thus, under O 4A r 28(1) it was taken to have been dismissed on 6 February 2023.

Conclusion

For the reasons that both Allanson J had explained to the applicant on 22 November 2021, and to which I had referred at the hearing on 6 September 2022, the application had no practical utility and was not capable of resulting in an award of compensation to the applicant.
As noted earlier and as Allanson J explained to the applicant on 22 November 2021, if the applicant wanted an award of damages it was necessary for him to bring a separate action commenced by filing a writ.[2]
[2] ts 4.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
OK
Associate to the Honourable Justice Tottle
14 FEBRUARY 2023