Mikhail v Commissioner of Corrective Services - [2014] WASC 399

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: MIKHAIL -v- COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES [2014] WASC 399

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 23 OCTOBER 2014

DELIVERED : 10 NOVEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 2208 of 2014

BETWEEN: ADAM MIKHAIL
Plaintiff
AND
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES
Defendant

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Mandamus - Need for public duty - Prisoner seeking provision of computer - No public duty - Whether any jurisdictional error by decisionmaker - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Ms C J Thatcher

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barreto v McMullan [2014] WASCA 152
Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 51
James v Robinson (1963) 109 CLR 593
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531
Mikhail v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 200
Re Cock; Ex parte Diano [2014] WASC 63
Re Corruption and Crime Commission; Ex parte Calabro [2012] WASC 355
Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125; (2007) 34 WAR 342
BEECH J:

Introduction

The applicant is a sentenced prisoner. He seeks a writ of mandamus against the Commissioner of Corrective Services (the Commissioner), commanding the Commissioner to issue him with a computer.
For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the application.

The facts

The applicant is a serving prisoner at Albany Regional Prison. He was convicted after trial of wilful murder. On 22 June 2011 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 37 years.
He appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 12 October 2012.[1]
[1] Mikhail v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 200.
On or about 29 May 2014 Mr Mikhail applied to prison officers to be provided a computer for his exclusive use in his cell. In his letter[2] Mr Mikhail:
(a)stated that he currently had one case before a court and two cases pending requiring a computer to complete, identifying a High Court appeal, a District Court civil action and a further District or Supreme Court civil action. The District Court civil action had an identified action number, and so it is apparent that that is the action that was said to be before a court at the time the letter was written;
(b)stated that in order to successfully complete and participate in his cases he required a departmental issued computer for his cell;
(c)stated that he understood that Policy Directive 42 of the Department of Corrective Services allows for a departmental computer to be issued in order for the prisoner to defend himself in such a situation;
(d)stated that he was 'an appeal class' because he was preparing his appeal against conviction and/or severity of sentence; and
(e)set out his working commitments at Albany Regional Prison and the other reasons why he said he needed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mikhail v Commissioner of Corrective Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASC 399
Decision Date: 10 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mikhail v Commissioner of Corrective Services involves a prisoner, Mikhail, who sought the provision of a computer by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Commissioner had a public duty to provide Mikhail with a computer, and if not, whether there was any jurisdictional error by the decision-maker.

The central legal issue was whether the Commissioner of Corrective Services owed Mikhail a public duty to provide him with a computer. Mikhail argued that the Commissioner should have granted him access to a computer for educational purposes, claiming it was a public duty to support prisoners' rehabilitation. The Court had to determine whether the Commissioner's decision not to provide a computer was a jurisdictional error or if it fell within the Commissioner's discretion.

The Court found that the Commissioner did not owe Mikhail a public duty to provide a computer. The Court reasoned that the Commissioner's decision not to provide a computer was within the scope of their discretionary powers and did not involve any jurisdictional error. The Court held that the Commissioner had the authority to decide on the provision of resources to prisoners and that the decision in this case did not go beyond that authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mikhail's application for mandamus.

The Court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing Mikhail's application. The decision reinforced the principle that not all requests made by prisoners can be enforced through judicial review, particularly when the decision-making process is within the discretion of the relevant authority.

Orders