McKane v Commissioner of Corrective Services for New South Wales

McKane, an inmate at the custody of the Commissioner of Corrective Services for New South Wales, sought judicial review of a decision declining to approve a recommendation of the Serious Offenders Review Council that his security classification be reduced. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. McKane argued that the Commissioner's decision was unlawful because it was based on an incorrect assessment of the risk he posed, and that the decision-maker failed to consider relevant material.

The court had to determine whether the Commissioner's decision was legally sound and whether there was a proper basis for granting injunctive relief. The court considered the principles of judicial review, the nature of the decision-making process under the Corrective Services NSW Inmate Classification and Placement Policy, and whether the decision-maker had adhered to the relevant statutory and policy framework. The court also examined whether there was an arguable case for judicial review and if the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant injunctive relief.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the Commissioner's decision was not irrational or unlawful, and that there was no proper basis for injunctive relief. The court found that the decision-maker had considered the relevant material and that the decision was within the scope of the policy and legislative framework. The court also noted that the application did not meet the stringent requirements for injunctive relief, particularly in light of the principles established in Clark v Commissioner for Corrective Services. The court dismissed the application and made no order for costs.

The court's decision reinforces the high threshold for judicial review in administrative law cases and the stringent requirements for injunctive relief. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to the relevant policy and legislative framework in decision-making processes and the need for a strong case for judicial intervention. The decision also highlights the need for applicants to carefully consider the merits of their case and the likelihood of success before seeking injunctive relief.