McKechnie v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (Weekly Payments Judgment)

The plaintiff, McKechnie, a prisoner, sought judicial review of a decision by the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to deny his application for preliminary discovery of documents relating to his weekly payments. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's decision to stop his weekly payments was unlawful and a breach of his human rights. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues were whether the plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that he had or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court from the defendants, whether the public authority acted unlawfully in failing to give proper consideration to human rights, whether the public authority could have made a different decision, whether the plaintiff had made reasonable inquiries, and whether the plaintiff had sufficient information to decide whether to commence a proceeding to obtain relief.

The court held that the plaintiff had no reasonable cause to believe that he had or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court from the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff's decision to refuse work in a prison industry was a voluntary one, and the regulations provided that there was no entitlement to payment of remuneration if work was refused. The court also found that the public authority could not have made a different decision in the circumstances, and there was no evidence that the defendants had or were likely to have or had or were likely to have had in their possession documents relating to the question whether the plaintiff had a right to obtain relief. Finally, the court held that the plaintiff had made reasonable inquiries and had sufficient information to decide whether to commence a proceeding to obtain relief. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for preliminary discovery was dismissed.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for preliminary discovery of documents and awarded costs to the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff had no reasonable cause to believe that he had or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court from the defendants, and the public authority could not have made a different decision in the circumstances. The court also found that the plaintiff had made reasonable inquiries and had sufficient information to decide whether to commence a proceeding to obtain relief. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for preliminary discovery was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs.