Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld Corrective Services - [2010] QCA 316

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld Corrective Services & Ors [2010] QCA 316

PARTIES:

STUART WILLIAM PALMER
(applicant/appellant)
v
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES
(first respondent)
THE GENERAL MANAGER, WOLSTON & PALEN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTRES, SCOTT COLLINS
(second respondent)
MANGER OF SECURE ACCOMMODATION, MARK GRANVILLE
(third respondent)
STEPHEN JAMES QUADRIO
(fourth respondent/not a party to the appeal)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7650 of 2009
SC No 8711 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 October 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes, Muir and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time refused

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – GENERALLY – where applicant is a prisoner at a corrective services facility – where applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondents to limit the quantity of legal documents he could have in his cell at any one time – where trial judge found there had been no decision under an enactment capable of review and dismissed the application – where applicant’s appeal is out of time – whether there was a relevant decision under an enactment – whether any decision affected the applicant’s legal rights – whether an extension of time should be granted

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 45, s 136, s 140, s 141, s 263, s 271, s 317, s 317(1), s 317(2)
Corrective Services Regulation 2006 (Qld), s 18, s 19(h), s 45
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4, s 20, s 22, s 32, s 48

Abbot v Howden, General Manager, Woodford Correctional Centre [2006] QSC 186, cited
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33, applied
Australian National University v Burns (1982) 64 FLR 166, cited
Barrow v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2004] 1 Qd R 485; [2002] QSC 168, cited
Bartz v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2002] 2 Qd R 114; [2001] QSC 392, distinguished
Burns v Australian National University (1982) 61 FLR 76; [1982] FCA 59, cited
Evans v Friemann (1981) 53 FLR 229; [1981] FCA 85, cited
Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7, applied
McEvoy v Lobban [1990] 2 Qd R 235; (1989) 48 A Crim R 412, cited
McGrane v The General Manager, Wolston Correctional Centre, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, 24 January 2006, Muir J, considered
Meizer v Chief Executive, Dept of Corrective Services & Anor [2005] QSC 351, considered
Rich v Groningen (1997) 95 A Crim R 272; [1997] VSC 35, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Smith, with B A Bradley, for the applicant
K A Mellifont, with…

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 Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld 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: [2010] QCA 316
Decision Date: 12 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld Corrective Services, the applicant, a prisoner, sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondents, the Chief Executive of Queensland Corrective Services, to limit the quantity of legal documents he could have in his cell at any one time. The application was dismissed by the trial judge, who found there had been no decision under an enactment capable of review. The applicant's appeal from that decision was out of time. The issues before the court were whether there was a relevant decision under an enactment, whether any decision affected the applicant's legal rights, and whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal.

The court considered the nature of the decision in question and whether it was a decision under an enactment capable of review. It concluded that the decision to limit the quantity of legal documents in a prisoner's cell was not a decision under an enactment as it was not a decision made pursuant to a statutory power or duty, nor did it confer, alter, or extinguish legal rights or obligations. The court held that the decision was a matter of internal prison management and did not affect the applicant's legal rights. Consequently, the application for judicial review was correctly dismissed. The court also considered whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal but found that the applicant had failed to establish any grounds for an extension, and the application for an extension of time was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time was refused. The court confirmed that there was no relevant decision under an enactment, and the applicant's appeal was dismissed as out of time. The decision reinforces the principle that not all internal prison management decisions are subject to judicial review and that such decisions must meet the threshold requirements for review under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for an extension of time refused

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.

CITATION:	Palmer v The Chief Executive, Qld Corrective Services & Ors [2010] QCA 316
PARTIES:	STUART WILLIAM PALMER (applicant/appellant) v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES (first respondent) THE GENERAL MANAGER, WOLSTON & PALEN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTRES, SCOTT COLLINS (second respondent) MANGER OF SECURE ACCOMMODATION, MARK GRANVILLE (third respondent) STEPHEN JAMES QUADRIO (fourth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7650 of 2009 SC No 8711 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2010
JUDGES:	Holmes, Muir and Chesterman JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for an extension of time refused
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – GENERALLY – where applicant is a prisoner at a corrective services facility – where applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondents to limit the quantity of legal documents he could have in his cell at any one time – where trial judge found there had been no decision under an enactment capable of review and dismissed the application – where applicant’s appeal is out of time – whether there was a relevant decision under an enactment – whether any decision affected the applicant’s legal rights – whether an extension of time should be granted Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 45, s 136, s 140, s 141, s 263, s 271, s 317, s 317(1), s 317(2) Corrective Services Regulation 2006 (Qld), s 18, s 19(h), s 45 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 4, s 20, s 22, s 32, s 48 Abbot v Howden, General Manager, Woodford Correctional Centre [2006] QSC 186, cited Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33, applied Australian National University v Burns (1982) 64 FLR 166, cited Barrow v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2004] 1 Qd R 485; [2002] QSC 168, cited Bartz v Chief Executive, Department of Corrective Services [2002] 2 Qd R 114; [2001] QSC 392, distinguished Burns v Australian National University (1982) 61 FLR 76; [1982] FCA 59, cited Evans v Friemann (1981) 53 FLR 229; [1981] FCA 85, cited Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7, applied McEvoy v Lobban [1990] 2 Qd R 235; (1989) 48 A Crim R 412, cited McGrane v The General Manager, Wolston Correctional Centre, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, 24 January 2006, Muir J, considered Meizer v Chief Executive, Dept of Corrective Services & Anor [2005] QSC 351, considered Rich v Groningen (1997) 95 A Crim R 272; [1997] VSC 35, considered
COUNSEL:	P E Smith, with B A Bradley, for the applicant K A Mellifont, with…