Littlefair v The Prisoners Review Board
[2011] WASCA 150 (S)
•8 JULY 2011
LITTLEFAIR -v- THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2011] WASCA 150 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2011] WASCA 150 (S) | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:137/2010 | 2 & 3 MARCH 2011 & ON THE PAPERS | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ McLURE P MURPHY JA | 8/07/11 | |
| 20/09/11 | |||
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order nisi discharged | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL LANCE LITTLEFAIR THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA |
Catchwords: | Consequential orders Whether declaratory relief should be granted Costs |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LITTLEFAIR -v- THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2011] WASCA 150 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- McLURE P
MURPHY JA
DECISION : 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACV 137 of 2010 BETWEEN : MICHAEL LANCE LITTLEFAIR
- Applicant
AND
THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD
Respondent
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener
Catchwords:
Consequential orders - Whether declaratory relief should be granted - Costs
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Order nisi discharged
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Dr J T Schoombee
Respondent : No appearance
Intervener : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr H D Leith
Solicitors:
Applicant : Amidzic Lawyers
Respondent : No appearance
Intervener : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 8 July 2011, this court published its reasons for the determination of the issues which had been raised by the order nisi. In short, although the applicant established that the Prisoners Review Board (the Board) had breached its statutory obligations by failing to provide him with notice of and a statement of reasons for its decision to suspend his parole as soon as practicable, and by failing to provide him with a proper statement of the reasons for one aspect of its decision to cancel his parole, he otherwise failed to establish any of the other grounds upon which the order nisi had been granted.
2 At the time of publishing its reasons, the court directed that the parties exchange written submissions with respect to the orders appropriately made to give effect to its reasons, and advise the court whether they wished a further hearing in respect of the issues raised by those submissions. The applicant and the intervener have complied with those directions and advised the court that they do not require a further hearing in respect of those issues. Consistently with its approach to the proceedings to date, the Board has not participated in this process.
The orders sought by the applicant
3 The applicant has filed a minute of proposed orders in the following terms:
1. It be declared that the obligation of the Respondent pursuant to section 107B of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA) ('the Act') to provide to a prisoner reasons for any decision referred to in section 107(B)(1) made in respect of him or her, should state the conclusion(s) reached and, subject to section 114, set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings based and, if relevant, the criteria against which the available information was judged.
2. It be declared that the Respondent failed to comply with the obligations imposed by section 107B of the Act in the following respects, namely by failing to provide the Applicant:
(a) with written notice of its decision on 4 June 2009 to suspend his parole as soon as practicable;
(b) with an adequate statement of reasons for its decision on 17 December 2009 to cancel his parole.
3. It be declared that nothing in the Act or any delegated legislation made thereunder, prevents the decision-makers listed in sections 115 or 115A of the Act from affording an oral hearing (whether by
- video link or otherwise) to a prisoner in respect of any act, matter or thing referred to in those sections.
- 4. It be declared that no policy or approach put forward by the Chairperson of [the] Respondent, prevents the Respondent from affording an oral hearing (whether by video link or otherwise) to a prisoner in respect of any act, matter or thing referred to in section 115 of the Act or prevents the decision-makers referred to in section 115A from doing so in respect of any act, matter or thing under that section.
5. The order nisi be otherwise discharged.
6. Subject to paragraph 7 below, the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs, including any costs in respect of interlocutory matters, to be taxed if not agreed.
7. The Intervener pay the Applicant's costs set out in Littlefair v Prisoners Review Board [2010] WASC 239 at [23], to be taxed if not agreed.
8. Alternatively to 6 and 7, Intervener pays the Applicant's costs, including any cost in respect of interlocutory matters, to be taxed if not agreed.
4 The orders sought by the applicant correspond very closely to the orders sought in the matter of Seiffert v The Prisoners Review Board and in Kirby v The Prisoners Review Board which were heard at the same time as these proceedings. In those proceedings we are publishing reasons for our conclusion that the orders sought by the applicant in those cases should not be granted. The reasons given in Seiffert apply with equal force to the orders sought by the applicant in this case save that in respect of proposed order 2, the reasons given in Kirby correspond with Mr Littlefair's circumstance, and explain why proposed order 2 should not be made in this case.
5 For those reasons, the orders appropriately made in this case are:
1. Order nisi discharged; and
2. No order as to costs.
0
2
1