Mallet v Dept of Corrective Services

In the case of Mallet v Department of Corrective Services, the appellant sought a judicial review of the respondent's decision to refuse remissions. The appellant argued that the decision was flawed and sought a review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The dispute arose from the interpretation of section 27 of the Corrective Services Regulations, which governs the forfeiture and remission of time. The case was initially heard in the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Australia, where the appellant's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether section 27 of the Corrective Services Regulations required a decision to be made on whether to forfeit remissions. Additionally, the court had to determine whether section 27 provided a basis for granting remissions, separate from section 21 of the Corrective Services Act. The appellant contended that the respondent had failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions and, as a result, had not properly exercised its discretion in refusing remissions. The respondent argued that section 27 only applied to cases where a decision had been made to forfeit remissions and that the appellant's application was therefore misconceived.

The court found in favour of the appellant and allowed the appeal. The Trial Division's dismissal of the appellant's application for judicial review was set aside. The court held that section 27 of the Corrective Services Regulations did require a decision to be made on whether to forfeit remissions, and that the respondent had failed to properly consider this issue. Furthermore, the court found that section 27 provided an independent basis for granting remissions, separate from section 21 of the Corrective Services Act. Consequently, the issues of whether the appellant should forfeit the whole or any part of the remission which he might otherwise have enjoyed on the sentence of 7 years imprisonment and whether the appellant was entitled to remission were remitted to the authorised delegate to be considered according to law. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal, to be assessed.