Millington v Peach (No 2)

Case [2025] ACTSC 21

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Millington v Peach (No 2)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 21

Hearing Dates: 

10 – 12, 17 July, 2, 16 November 2023, 17 March 2025

Decision Date: 

07 February 2025

Orders Made:

17 March 2025

Before:

McWilliam J

Decision: 

Declarations made of breaches of Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT), failure to afford procedural fairness, and failure to give proper consideration to plaintiff’s human rights. 

Catchwords: 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – Judicial review of decisions made by ACT Justice and Community Safety Directorate – plaintiff held on remand awaiting trial at the time decisions were made – where plaintiff transferred from prison in ACT to Goulburn Correctional Centre – whether decision-making process accorded with procedures required under Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) – whether denial of procedural fairness

HUMAN RIGHTS – whether conduct of authorities at AMC breached plaintiff’s human rights under ss 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – consequences of failure to review decision to transfer plaintiff to a different correctional facility

Legislation Cited: 

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) ss 5, 10, 17(1)(c), Sch 1 item 4

Corrections Management Act2007 (ACT) ss 7, 8, 10, 17, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 192, 195, 201(1), 202(1), 223, Pt 9.2, Ch 11

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 8, 10, 26, 27

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 40C(6)

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) Dictionary

Cases Cited: 

Attorney General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21; 170 CLR 1

Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children [2016] VSC 796; 51 VR 473

CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1; 255 CLR 514

Davidson v Director-General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2022] ACTSC 83; 18 ACTLR 1

Deng v Australian Capital Territory (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 262

Deng v Australian Capital Territory [2024] ACTCA 10

Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v State of South Australia [2023] HCA 22; 97 ALJR 575

Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; 264 CLR 123

Islam v Director General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2021] ACTSC 33

Islam v Director-General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2022] ACTSC 124; 369 FLR 417

Islam v Director-General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2024] ACTCA 22

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Mental Health Australia Ltd v Registrar, ACT Long Service Leave Authority [2019] ACTSC 188; 344 FLR 413

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; 264 CLR 421

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40; 256 CLR 326

MZAPC v Minister for Immigration [2021] HCA 17; 273 CLR 506

Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; 276 CLR 80

Neilsen v Attorney-General [2001] 3 NZLR…

Continue reading Millington v Peach (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Millington v Peach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 21
Case
[2025] ACTSC 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Millington v Peach (No 2) involved the plaintiff, who was held on remand in the ACT, being transferred from a prison in the ACT to the Goulburn Correctional Centre. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the decisions made by the ACT Justice and Community Safety Directorate regarding the transfer. The court was required to determine whether the decision-making process adhered to the procedures outlined in the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) and whether the plaintiff's procedural fairness rights were breached.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the process followed in making the decisions to transfer the plaintiff accorded with the statutory requirements and whether the denial of procedural fairness occurred. Additionally, the court examined whether the actions of the authorities breached the plaintiff's human rights as outlined in sections 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The court also considered the consequences of the failure to review the decision to transfer the plaintiff to a different correctional facility.

The court found that the decision-making process did not comply with the statutory requirements, and the plaintiff's procedural fairness rights were indeed breached. The authorities' conduct was found to have violated the plaintiff's human rights under the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The court concluded that the failure to review the decision to transfer the plaintiff resulted in significant consequences. The court made declarations of breaches of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT), failure to afford procedural fairness, and failure to give proper consideration to the plaintiff’s human rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declarations made of breaches of Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT), failure to afford procedural fairness, and failure to give proper consideration to plaintiff’s human rights.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.