Middleton v Chief Executive, Department of Correctional Services

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MIDDLETON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 155
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - SUMMARY DISPOSAL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS
The Applicant, who is serving a sentence of imprisonment, applies for judicial review of a decision by the Respondent to include a reference to an incident report on his electronic prisoner file. The Applicant also applies for an extension of time in which to commence this application.
By way of Interlocutory Application, the Respondent seeks summary judgment of the Applicant’s application on the basis that no reasonable basis for an action of judicial review is disclosed.
Held: Extension of time refused, and the application for judicial review is summarily dismissed. The incident report is not a record of the kind that has legal effects or consequences that would render it capable of judicial review. Even if the decision could attract relief in the nature of certiorari or mandamus, the Applicant has not exhausted the alternative avenues of review available to him, a fact which weighs considerably against the grant of such relief.
Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 256.5, referred to.
Brighton Cement Ltd v Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd and Others [2020] SASC 161; McLeod v Legal Professional Conduct Commissioner [2016] SASC 151, considered.

MIDDLETON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 155
Civil - Application
McDONALD J.

Mr Middleton is currently serving a term of imprisonment at Cadell Training Centre. On 19 December 2019 Mr Middleton was sentenced to ten years and 6 months imprisonment for one count of Manufacturing a Large Quantity of a Controlled Drug for Sale contrary to s 33 of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). A non-parole period of eight years, four months and 11 days was fixed.
Mr Middleton has made an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services to include a reference to an incident report (IR/2020/3009) in his electronic prisoner file. He seeks orders “removing” or “unlinking” his name from the incident report.
Mr Middleton filed his Originating Application more than two years out of time and consequently seeks an extension of time within which to commence the proceedings.[1]
[1] Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 256.3.
The Department for Correctional Services (‘DCS’) has filed an Interlocutory Application for summary judgment on the basis that no reasonable basis for an action of judicial review is disclosed. It is this application that is currently under consideration.
Power to grant summary judgment
The Interlocutory Application has been made under r 144.2 and r 256.5 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (‘the rules’).
Pursuant to r 256.5(3)(a) where a respondent to an action for judicial review applies for summary judgment, the Court will dismiss the action “unless the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for the action,” however, the power to determine an action summarily should not be exercised lightly. In Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd v Hallett Concrete Pty Ltd and Others,[2] Doyle J summarised the approach to be adopted in making such a determination:
… Exercise of the power requires a practical assessment of whether the applicant has real, as opposed to merely fanciful, prospect of success. While the Court need not be satisfied that the claim is hopeless or bound to fail, nevertheless it must be cautious not to do a party injustice by summarily determining an action, particularly where there are disputed issues of fact or law or mixed fact and law, merely because the Court considers that the claim is unlikely to succeed. However, beyond these very general guidelines, the Court should focus upon the words used in the rules and avoid applying any judicial gloss.
Related to the requirement that the Court undertake a “practical” assessment is the notion that the Court should not embark upon a “mini trial” of the claim. Rather, the claim should be assessed in a summary manner, while being cognisant of the incomplete nature of the evidence upon which the Court's decision must be based. Adversarial argument may assist, and indeed may result in the emergence of a sufficiently clear answer to a complex issue that summary judgment is appropriate. On the other hand, the need for prolonged argument may be indicative of a reasonable basis for the claim.
[Footnotes omitted.]
[2] [2020] SASC 161 at [59]–[60].
Applying that approach to the matter before me I determined to hear submissions on the interlocutory application before determining the application for judicial review.
Events that form the basis of the application for judicial review
In order to understand the manner in which these events have unfolded, Mr Middleton’s complaints and DCS’s response to those complaints it is necessary to have an appreciation of how DCS manages its electronic data.
The Justice Information System
DCS maintains an electronic data system called the Justice Information System (JIS). The JIS is an administrative offender management system that is used by DCS to manage information relevant to the supervision of offenders. It is used to record interactions between employees and prisoners, and other information relevant to the case management of offenders. These records are used by DCS to assist with its day-to-day operational management of prisoners. That operational management includes, but is not limited to, matters such as prisoner intake into prisons, movement of prisoners within and between prisons, sentence management, prisoner mail and property management, prisoner financial accounts and employment management, prison visit management, offender drug testing and victim management. It is important to note that the system stores and retains all information that may be relevant to the management of prisoners and is not limited to prisoner misconduct.
On the JIS, a summary profile page is created for each prisoner. From that page a wide range of information related to the prisoner is accessible by DCS.
Incident reports on the JIS
The JIS includes information about incidents that occur in prisons. In accordance with standard operating procedures all DCS employees who witness, are aware of or become involved in an incident must report it within the required time frames.
After an incident is reported, a record of the incident is entered into the Electronic Incident Report function in the JIS. When an incident is first recorded using this function an “Incident Report” is generated in the JIS. Each incident report has a unique identifying number.
Incident History
When an Incident Report on the JIS refers to a prisoner, that Incident Report becomes electronically linked, under a tab called “Incident History”, to the summary profile of the named prisoner.
By clicking on the “Incident History” tab on the prisoner’s summary profile, a page is accessed headed “Incident Recording: List Incidents by Offender”. This page shows a list of all incident reports in the JIS System in which the particular prisoner is identified. The list generated includes any incidents “involving” the prisoner, regardless of the nature of their connection to the incident in question.
Incident 3009 of 2020
On 4 September 2020, Mr Middleton was serving his sentence in unit A4 of the Saltbush accommodation at Port Augusta Prison. A4 is an independent living environment comprising of 8 units. On that date DCS conducted a planned search of the Saltbush accommodation. This involved searches of all of the cells in A4, B3 and C1 units. Whilst contraband was located in some of the cells in B3 and C1, none was located in A4. Of particular significance, no prohibited items were located in Mr Middleton’s cell.
As a consequence of this search two incident reports were generated in the JIS. One report related to the prisoners housed in C1 and the other related to those housed in A4 and B3 (2020/3009).
The 2020/3009 Incident Report contains a summary of relevant events. It reads:
At approximately 07:30 hours ERG teams and OSU entered both B3 and A4 accommodation units. Prisoners were strip searched prior to being moved to the Port Augusta holding cells area. At approximately 08:55 hours 3 x mobile phones were located within B3 kitchen areas. The search also located 1 x charger, 1 x charger cord, 2 x cigarette lighters and 2 x cigarette papers. The search group proceeded to Saltbush C unit to which 3 x mobile phones, suspected tools, 2 x earphones, 1 x charger, 1 x small bottle of white substantial (possible paint), 1 x suspected package Suboxone, 1 x package unknown, 2 x cleaning swabs, 1 x suspected USB and one roll of black electrical tape hidden between the wall joint behind the unit fridges. No major items were found during the Saltbush A4 unit search.
Mr Middleton was one of the 15 prisoners whose profile was electronically linked to the incident by Incident Report 2020/3009. Each of the names of the prisoners was listed with their “alleged role” recorded underneath. In the original version of the Incident Report three of the prisoners are referred to as “witnesses” and the remainder including Mr Middleton, are recorded as “perpetrators”. That was clearly an inaccurate reflection of Mr Middleton’s role in the events of 4 September 2020.
On that same date Mr Middleton was moved to Blue Bush 3, a secure accommodation unit within Port Augusta Prison. On 15 October 2020 he was transported to the Spinifex unit at Port Augusta Prison. That occurred as part of an overall operational decision to move all of the prisoners who had been the subject of the search. Spinifex is a residential accommodation unit but not a fully independent living environment. As such it was a downgrade in the standard of Mr Middleton’s accommodation. On 22 October 2020 Mr Middleton was moved to unit C1 of Saltbush which is accommodation of a comparable standard to unit A4.
Freedom of Information Application and Correspondence with the Authorities
Since the events of 4 September 2020, Mr Middleton has made numerous applications pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) (‘FOI Act’). These applications have resulted in Mr Middleton receiving records that have confirmed to him that Incident Report 2020/3009 is linked to his file.
In late July 2021 and again on 29 August 2021 Mr Middleton wrote to the General Manager of Port Augusta Prison Sandra Russell. In those letters he raised concerns about two Incident Reports connected to his file; Incident Report 2020/3009 and another that is irrelevant to this application. He expressed his concerns in the following terms:
Incident IR 2020/3009
I was never found with a mobile phone, handset, charger, sim card and battery. I have since found out it has been placed on all the occupants of A4 in Saltbush at the time, as an “Incident by Offender”. There was a phone found in B unit when searched. I have asked other inmates in D unit, C unit and there is no entry of IR/2020/3009 on their offender I.I.S. recording. I have to ask why is this placed on my incident recording? I could understand if it was placed on every single inmate being housed out in Saltbush; but it is not; So why all of us in A4 and furthermore why mine! When not even found in our house.”
Mr Middleton went on to say:
I understand I am now housed at Cadell and should think it has not been detrimental to where I’m housed. The problem is I want to apply for Home Detention and when I do I don’t need this popping up.[3]
[3] Annexure G to the Affidavit of Mark Anthony Middleton, pp. 27-28.
For those reasons Mr Middleton requested that Ms Russell remove the incident from his file.
Mr Middleton received no replies to his letters to Ms Russell.
On 27 September 2021 Mr Middleton wrote to the Chief Executive of DCS, David Brown. In that letter he referred to his earlier unanswered correspondence with Ms Russell and requested Mr Brown’s assistance in having the link with the Incident Report removed. He again expressed concerns that the entry may have a detrimental effect on any future application for Home Detention.
On 20 April 2022 the Executive Director of DCS, William Kelsey responded to the letter to Mr Brown. He advised Mr Middleton that his request had been considered and the Department determined that “a removal of this record would not be supported”. The basis of this decision was that the record was accurate in that “he was not implicated as responsible but was however named as one of the prisoners in the unit who had access to the common areas”.
Mr Middleton raised the issue of the Incident Report with a Visiting Inspector in late 2021 and early 2022. He also telephoned the Department of Correctional Services Complaint line.
Mr Middleton wrote to the Ombudsman in early 2022 and again on 9 February 2022 on becoming aware that his first letter had not been received. In those letters to the Ombudsman he complained about the Incident Report and the failure of the authorities at DCS to respond to his correspondence.
On 27 April 2022 the Ombudsman wrote back to Mr Middleton. In that letter he advised that he had made appropriate enquiries and determined that it was not in the public interest to take the matter any further.
On 2 May 2022 Mr Middleton wrote to the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, the Honourable Joe Szakacs MP. In that letter Mr Middleton complained about the inadequate responses that he had received up until that time. Minister Szakacs replied on 9 June 2022 advising that he had received advice from DCS and was satisfied that adequate steps had been taken to address Mr Middleton’s concerns. He also advised Mr Middleton that “DCS have reiterated that the Incident Report will not impact on your future parole application”.
On 2 June 2022 Mr Middleton made a further FOI application. On this occasion the application was a “Request to Amend a Document Containing Personal Affairs Information” under s 31 of the FOI Act. The request was in the following terms:
The documents containing the information are:
On the “JIS” system under Mark Middleton 181454 “Incidents” IR/2020/3009 stating I was found with phone, sim card, charger.
The Information that requires changing is:
IR/2020/3009 should be removed.
On 7 July 2022 a FOI officer from DCS responded to that application. He advised Mr Middleton that the record would not be amended on the basis that the relevant document was not incorrect, incomplete or misleading in a material respect.[4]
[4] Freedom of Information Act 1991(SA) s 35.
Significantly the letter concluded by advising Mr Middleton that if he was dissatisfied with the determination, he could seek an internal review by writing to the Chief Executive of DCS within 30 days.
Mr Middleton did not seek an internal review. Instead he filed an Originating Application for judicial review in this court on 15 August 2022. That application was withdrawn on 17 November 2022 after the first hearing during which Mr Middleton made submissions about Incident Report 2022/3009.
On 9 November 2022 Mr Middleton wrote to SACAT setting out his various complaints relating to the Incident Report. The acting Deputy Registrar responded to Mr Middleton on 28 November 2022 and advised that SACAT could not review a department decision until the internal review process was completed. Given that it was open for Mr Middleton to apply for an internal review of the 7 July 2022 decision under s 38 of the FOI Act, it was not open for SACAT to review the decision. The Deputy Registrar advised that the documents that Mr Middleton had forwarded to SACAT had been scanned and retained and the hard copies were returned to him should he require them for a s 38 internal review application.
No application for internal review was made.
DCS decision to amend the record
On 30 November 2022 Executive Director Ryan Harber wrote to Mr Middleton to advise him that DCS had reviewed the submissions that he had made in the Supreme Court on the application for judicial review and had of its own volition determined to undertake the following actions:
1.Amend your alleged role recorded in the relevant incident report (IR/2022/3009) from ‘Perpetrator’ to ‘other’.
2.Modify the Case Note dated 4 September 2020 recorded on the Justice Information System (JIS) which refers to the incident report, to include that “Nothing of significance was found in unit A4, which was the unit that Mr Middleton was accommodated in.”
On 9 December 2022 DCS amended the records accordingly.
It is Mr Middleton’s position that these amendments do not go far enough in addressing his concerns. Whilst these amendments mean that the Incident Report more accurately reflects Mr Middleton’s role in the relevant event, the Incident History tab containing his summary profile still relevantly reads:
Incidents involving MIDDELTON, Mark Anthony (181454):

Incidents Summary Type Category Location Date Occurred Status

IR/2021/3009 Search operation within Saltbush prison accommodation prohibited item finds. Type 1 Mobile Phone (handset, charger, sim card, battery) found. Port Augusta Prison. 04/09/2020 06:00 Finalised.

The evidence before me is that the JIS is designed in such a way that it is not possible to change the entry on this page as it would automatically remove the entry from the summary profile page for each of the other prisoners involved.[5] On that basis it would seem that there is no more DCS can do without compromising the accuracy of other prisoner records.
[5] Affidavit of Ida Petraccaro dated 21 August 2023.
Grounds for Judicial Review
At the outset of submissions, I attempted to obtain some clarity as to the decision that was the subject of the application. There were three possible options. The decision to create Incident Report 2020/30009, the decision to include Mr Middleton’s name in the report or, the decision that was made in November 2022 to amend the record.
As the arguments developed it appeared that it was the decision to include Mr Middleton’s name on the Incident Report hence linking it to his file that was central to his application.
Although Mr Middleton was very clear about his desired outcome from these proceedings, he was equally unclear about the basis or the grounds for judicial review.
Properly considered the basis of Mr Middleton’s application appears to be no more than a belief that he has generally been treated unfairly since 4 September 2020 and now seeks the intervention of this Court to remedy the situation in some ill-defined manner. Mr Middleton made his position clear at the outset of submissions when he put the following to the Court:
If I could say something like I understand the Courts don’t like to tell other agencies what to do, Your Honour, and I’m not here, to like, undermine the Chief Executive powers by creating a legal minefield for him either, you know, but I’ve had no correspondence in this, no one’s wanted to answer anything. This could have all been sort of settled, but no one’s wanted to answer anything. This could have all been sort of settled, but no one- they don’t want to – no one wants to converse, or any transparency with it, you know what I mean.
I understand your position to get involved in it because it’s a complex situation, you know what I mean, in their management of prisoners and that, but it’s unfortunate. I don’t even really want to be here myself, but unfortunately I have to be.

Those submissions and the complaints raised generally by Mr Middleton highlight three matters. These are:
1.Mr Middleton’s misunderstanding of or refusal to accept what has happened in the past and the nature of the current impact (or lack of impact) of Incident Report 2020/3009 on him.
2.Mr Middleton’s misunderstanding of the limits of the remedies open to him in this Court.
3.A misunderstanding or refusal by Mr Middleton to accept that he has alternative remedies open to him if he has a genuine grievance.
Current impact of Incident Report 2020/3009
Incident reporting and recording by DCS for the purpose of offender management is guided by “SOP 004 – Incident Reporting and Recording” which sets out DCS’s standard operating procedures for reporting and recording. That procedure requires “all DCS employees who witness; are involved in/or become aware of an unreported incident must report the incident to the Manager. The Manger then must ensure that an incident report is completed using the Electronic Incident Reporting system in the JIS”. This must all occur within the time frames outlined within the standard operating procedure. That is what occurred in relation to the events of 4 September 2020.
Not only was there a logical basis to include Mr Middleton in that report, but to have omitted his name in circumstances in which all prisoners whose cells were searched were nominated, would have been positively misleading. He was one of the prisoners in the relevant unit whose cell was searched on that date. With one exception there was nothing in the information within the electronic record from which it could possibly be concluded that Mr Middleton had engaged in any misconduct. The exception is the initial entry of the word ‘perpetrator’, under Mr Middleton’s name.
There is no question that entry was incorrect and on the face of it, if someone did not read further into the records it had the potential to be misleading and operate to Mr Middleton’s detriment. It was no doubt for that reason DCS of its own volitation with no intervention from SACAT or the Courts made the decision to amend the entry to correct the record.
The absence of a reference to prisoners in unit C1 in Indecent Report 2020/3009
Throughout the history of this matter Mr Middleton has been particularly aggrieved that the occupants of his unit and B3 were linked to Incident Report 2020/3009 whilst those from C1 (who appear to have been the main culprits) are not referred to in the report.
This issue came up repeatedly during the course of submissions – I provide the following extract by way of example:
MR MIDDLETON:      Right. Just say there was three houses, like, there was A4, B3 and C1. I only found out a year ago that there was - I thought it was only ever one phone, but apparently it was six phones, drugs ... only found this out a year ago. Now, in our place in A4, there was nothing found. In B3 and C1, there was drugs, phones and all that found. But there are ... they're not putting us - if they were to put everyone, the whole - every inmate in that on the report, I wouldn't be here before you today. They've only put us in A4 and B3. All the inmates that were in unit C1 where the drugs were found, phones and that, aren't on the report. They never got punished, they never got moved, they got nothing.
HER HONOUR:          Mr Middleton, I can understand why that causes you a sense of grievance, but at the end of the day, this application is about you and any unfairness to you.
MR MIDDLETON:      Correct.
HER HONOUR:         - not whether or not those occupants of C1 got a free kick or not.
MR MIDDLETON:      No, well I'm not - but I've inherited their contraband.
After submissions further enquiries were undertaken by the Department. Those enquiries established that contrary to what was understood by Mr Middleton the occupants of C1 had been reported but that was the subject of a separate incident report number.
Impact of Incident Report 2020/3009 on Home Detention applications
Central to Mr Middleton’s concerns about his name being linked to the Incident Report 2020/3009 is his belief that it has been or will be an impediment to him being granted home detention for the remainder of his sentence. Pursuant to s 37A of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) the Chief Executive has an absolute discretion to release a prisoner from prison to serve a period on home detention. Although specific classes of offences result in the exclusion of some prisoners from the option of home detention, Mr Middleton does not fall within that category. It follows that at some point he may receive the benefit of the Chief Executive exercising his discretion to permit Mr Middleton to serve a portion of his sentence on home detention.
Throughout his submissions Mr Middleton claimed to have been disadvantage in having not been granted home detention as a consequence of being linked with Incident Report 2020/3009. He presented no evidence in support of this claim but instead relied upon supposition, anecdotes and hearsay about other prisoners who have supposedly been granted home detention ahead of him.
In contrast, the DCS presented cogent evidence which strongly supported that Mr Middleton has suffered no such disadvantage.
The evidence took the form of an affidavit from the Director of the Operational Support and Performance Branch for DCS (‘the Director’).[6] In that affidavit the Director set out the manner in which DCS prepares prisoners for release into the community. It involves the prisoner being transferred from higher security prisons such as Port Augusta Prison to a lower security complex such as Cadell Training Centre.
[6] 31 May 2023.
DCS records show that Mr Middleton was detained at Port Augusta Prison from 23 December 2019 to 25 August 2021. During that time, he had a “medium” security rating of 30 points. On 16 August 2021 his security rating was reduced to 24 points which falls into the “low” risk category. As a consequence, on 16 August 2021 the Senior Offender Committee approved his transfer to the Cadell Training Centre. The Director explained that a reduction of this size in a security rating in one review period was significant and of itself suggests that Incident Report 2020/3009 has had no impact on Mr Middleton’s security rating.
The transfer to Cadell occurred approximately three and a half years earlier than had previously been planned for Mr Middleton.[7] Based on the Director’s experience this move to a lower security campus so far ahead of the estimated sentence plan is a further indication that the inclusion of Mr Middleton’s name on Incident Report 2020/3009 is not hindering his progress through the prison system. The Director also reviewed Mr Middleton’s most recent case review which contained no reference to Incident Report 2020/3009 indicating that it was not considered relevant.
[7] Up until 15 August 2021 it was estimated in Mr Middleton’s Prisoner Placement Plan that he would not progress to Cadell Training Centre until about March 2025, Affidavit of Ida Petraccaro 31 March 2023, [15].
None of this is surprising given the alterations that have been made to the records by DCS to make Mr Middleton’s role in the 2020 incident abundantly clear. Mr Middleton appears to be unable to let go of the notion that his connection to Incident Report 2020/3009 is working to his detriment in some undisclosed, illogical manner.
An even more fundamental problem for Mr Middleton on this application is that the records establish that he has not yet made an application for home detention. When confronted with this Mr Middleton informed the Court that the reason that he has not applied is that despite repeated requests he had been refused the application form that he is required to complete in order to be granted home detention. He maintained that the decision by DCS employees to refuse to provide him with the appropriate paperwork could only be based on his link to Incident Report 2020/3009 as he believed that he satisfied all other criteria. Mr Middleton advanced no evidence in support of this submission and conceded that at no stage has anyone from DCS ever told him that any decision about his custody status has been impacted by the incident report.
It is readily apparent from an assessment of all the materials before the Court that whilst Mr Middleton no doubt believes that he is suffering a detriment as a result of Incident Report 2020/3009, there is no evidence in support of that position. To the contrary the evidence strongly supports the opposite conclusion.
Is there a reasonable basis for judicial review?
In my view Mr Middleton has established no reasonable basis for judicial review and further there is no reasonable basis for the relief sought.
Central to Mr Middleton’s action is a claim that he has been linked to an “incomplete and incorrect” incident report.[8] Whilst there may have previously been some force to that complaint given the original entry, the situation has changed since the amendment of the entry on 9 December 2022. I am satisfied that as a matter of fact there is nothing misleading about the current form of Incident Report 2020/3009 or that it is open to be misused against Mr Middleton. There is also no basis to impugn the Director’s evidence to the effect that Incident Report 2022/3009 has, as a matter of fact, not impeded Mr Middleton’s progress through the system. His concerns appear to arise from no more than his belief that he is being treated unfairly for reasons that he does not understand.
[8] FDN 5[3].
Even if I was of the view that Mr Middleton’s connection to the Incident Report was detrimental to his interest, I would still not exercise my discretion to grant relief. The Incident Report is not a record of a kind that has legal effects or consequences capable of being the subject of an order of certiorari. There is also no statutory duty for DCS to make, remove or maintain incident reports, to include or exclude information from them, such that an order of mandamus would be inappropriate.
Failure to exhaust alternative review mechanisms
Given that the courts power is discretionary, even if Mr Middleton’s grounds could be established and even if the decision was capable of being the subject of the relief sought, the availability of alternative more efficacious avenues of review would be a powerful,[9] consideration against the grant of any remedy.
[9] McLeod v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner [2016] SASC 151 [80]-[82].
Not only does Mr Middleton have other options open to him but he has been advised of those options and has chosen to disregard that advice. He chose not to take up the statutory right to an internal review under the FOI Act. Had he taken up that option he would have been entitled to a SACAT hearing. The SACAT Deputy Registrar advised Mr Middleton of those rights and went so far as retaining a scanned copy of his documents and forwarded the hard copy in order to facilitate that process. Alternatively, if an internal Freedom of Information review was unsuccessful it was open to Mr Middleton to seek a review to the Ombudsman.
Although Mr Middleton has sought judicial review of the decision to list his name on Incident Report 2022/3009 his real grievance is that he believes that he is being unfairly denied the opportunity of home detention. His complaint about the Incident Report is a means to an end. Mr Middleton has not yet applied for home detention. No doubt in due course he will. In the event that the application is denied it may be that it is that decision that is better challenged if there is any basis to believe that the Incident Report has been inappropriately relied upon.
Conclusion and Orders
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for Mr Middleton’s action for judicial review. I refuse the application for an extension of time and I order that the application for judicial review be summarily dismissed under r 256.5 of the Uniform Civil Rules.

Incidents	Summary	Type	Category	Location	Date Occurred	Status
IR/2021/3009	Search operation within Saltbush prison accommodation prohibited item finds.	Type 1	Mobile Phone (handset, charger, sim card, battery) found.	Port Augusta Prison.	04/09/2020 06:00	Finalised.

[2023] SASC 155

31 October 2023