Littlefair v Prisoners Review Board [No 2]
[2010] WASC 281
•22 OCTOBER 2010
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: LITTLEFAIR -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [No 2] [2010] WASC 281
CORAM: MARTIN CJ
HEARD: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
DELIVERED : 22 OCTOBER 2010
FILE NO/S: CIV 1912 of 2010
BETWEEN: MICHAEL LANCE LITTLEFAIR
Applicant
AND
PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD
RespondentATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervenor
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Claim of privilege on ground of public interest immunity - Related matter (Kirby v Prisoners Review Board [No 2] [2010] WASC 280)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
No order for disclosure
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Dr J T Schoombee
Respondent: No appearance
Intervenor: Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms S J Keighery
Solicitors:
Applicant: Amidzic Lawyers
Respondent: No appearance
Intervenor: State Solicitor's Office
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Kirby v Prisoners Review Board [No 2] [2010] WASC 280
MARTIN CJ: In these proceedings, the applicant, Michael Lance Littlefair, seeks to quash decisions made by the respondent, the Prisoners Review Board (the Board), to suspend his parole, and then to cancel his parole. The Board has filed a submitting appearance and is not taking any active part in the proceedings. The Attorney General for Western Australia has intervened.
These proceedings have been managed by me contemporaneously with similar proceedings commenced by Lennard Mark Kirby (CIV 1910 of 2010). I am publishing contemporaneously with these reasons, my reasons for determining a claim for public interest immunity from inspection of documents in those proceedings (Kirby v Prisoners Review Board [No 2] [2010] WASC 280 (Kirby [No 2])). These reasons should be read with Kirby [No 2], which should be taken to be incorporated by reference into these reasons, save to the extent that they are inconsistent with the particular issues that arise in this case.
In particular, I adopt and incorporate the views which I expressed in my reasons in Kirby [No 2] as to the principles to be applied to and as to the inadequacy of, the affidavit of Ms Sharon‑Lee Holland relied upon in support of the claim for public interest immunity in this matter. In fact, the text of that affidavit in this matter is relevantly identical to the text of the affidavit relied upon in the Kirby matter, save that there is an additional category of documents for which public interest immunity is claimed in this case, namely, a pre‑sentence report. I will deal with that category below.
In relation to the category of documents said by Ms Holland to be 'highly sensitive and confidential prison and parole documents', there are only three documents within that category where the claim for public interest immunity is challenged by Mr Littlefair. I have undertaken the same process of assessment in relation to those documents as I described in Kirby [No 2]. There is nothing in the contents of those documents that suggests that their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. However, equally there is nothing in those documents that is in any way relevant to the limited issues of factual controversy in these proceedings. Accordingly, consistently with the approach which I took in my earlier review of the documents provided by the Board relating to Mr Littlefair in respect of which public interest immunity has not been claimed, I will not order disclosure of those three documents as they are simply irrelevant to the contentious issues in these proceedings.
Turning now to the category of documents described by Ms Holland as documents relating to 'police methodology, intelligence and information', there is one document in this category for which public interest immunity is claimed. It is in fact a copy of one of the documents which I have found to be the subject of a valid claim for public interest immunity in the Kirby matter, because it reveals confidential information obtained through covert police investigations, and I make a similar finding for the purposes of this case. The contents of that document are essentially irrelevant to these proceedings, and there is therefore no reason why disclosure should be ordered.
As I mentioned above, a claim for public interest immunity has been made in respect of a pre‑sentence report. However, Mr Littlefair does not challenge the claim for immunity in respect of that document, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to rule upon it.
For these reasons, I will not order disclosure of any further documents provided by the Board relating to Mr Littlefair.
0