Pilcher v Townsville Men's Correctional Centre - [2025] QSC 231

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pilcher v Townsville Men’s Correctional Centre [2025] QSC 231

PARTIES:

DANE PILCHER
(Applicant)

V
TOWNSVILLE MEN’S CORRECTIONAL CENTRE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC 10 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2025

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Application dismissed.

2.   If the Chief Superintendent seeks an order as to costs:

(a)   she must notify the Registry of that fact within 28 days; and

(b) the Registry will then list this matter for further hearing as to costs (out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink) on the next available applications morning, notifying the parties and issuing a notice to produce Mr Pilcher by videolink.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – STANDING TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant currently occupies his own private room in one such ‘hut’ and is not a prisoner who is housed on the common area floors – where the Applicant contends he is nevertheless adversely affected by the decision due to the overcrowding of the ‘huts’ and its associated inconvenience – whether the Applicant is a person adversely affected by the decision – whether the Applicant has standing to bring these proceedings.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant contends that the Respondent ‘failed to consider the humanity, dignity and safe custody of inmates’ in making this decision, as per s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and s 5A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) – whether such failure is a source of relief for the Applicant.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PREOGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – NATURE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF REMEDY – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant seeks an order ‘quashing’ the decision – whether such a decision is one which has legal effect – whether an order in the nature of certiorari is available.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – whether declaratory relief would be appropriate in circumstances where not all potentially interested prisoners have had an opportunity to be heard in this application – whether there would be practical utility in declaratory…

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.

Continue reading Pilcher v Townsville Men's Correctional Centre

Details

AGLC: Pilcher v Townsville Men's Correctional Centre [2025] QSC 231
Case: [2025] QSC 231
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pilcher v Townsville Men's Correctional Centre involved an application for judicial review by Mr Pilcher, a prisoner housed in a private cell in the Village huts at Townsville Men's Correctional Centre. Mr Pilcher sought to challenge a decision by the Chief Superintendent to house additional prisoners on the common area floors of the Centre’s accommodation areas, arguing that this decision adversely affected him by causing overcrowding and inconvenience despite not being housed on the common area floors himself. The legal issues central to this case were whether Mr Pilcher had standing to bring the proceedings and whether the decision to house additional prisoners on the common area floors constituted a failure to consider the humanity, dignity, and safe custody of inmates, thereby warranting judicial review.

The court addressed the issue of standing first, considering whether Mr Pilcher was a person adversely affected by the decision. While Mr Pilcher was not housed on the common area floors, he argued that the overcrowding and associated inconvenience directly affected him. The court held that Mr Pilcher did indeed have standing as his rights were affected by the decision, albeit indirectly. However, the court moved to examine the merits of the application, focusing on whether the Chief Superintendent's decision to house additional prisoners on the common area floors constituted a failure to consider the humanity, dignity, and safe custody of inmates, as per the relevant legislative provisions.

The court found that the decision did not have a discernible or apparent legal effect upon Mr Pilcher's rights. Although Mr Pilcher argued that the decision infringed upon his human rights by compromising his dignity and safety, the court determined that the decision did not have a legal effect upon his rights. Consequently, an order quashing or setting aside the decision was not appropriate. Furthermore, the court considered whether a declaration would be an apt form of relief, given that not all potentially interested prisoners had been heard in this application. The court found that issuing a declaration would not be practical or appropriate in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court determined that the decision did not have a legal effect upon Mr Pilcher's rights and, therefore, an order quashing or setting aside the decision was not warranted. Additionally, the court found that a declaration would not be a suitable form of relief given the potential impact on other prisoners and the lack of full participation from all potentially interested parties in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed.

2. If the Chief Superintendent seeks an order as to costs:

(a) she must notify the Registry of that fact within 28 days; and

(b) the Registry will then list this matter for further hearing as to costs (out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink) on the next available applications morning, notifying the parties and issuing a notice to produce Mr Pilcher by videolink.

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

The issues to be addressed in explaining why his application must therefore be dismissed are:1.What was the decision?2.Does Mr Pilcher lack standing?3.What is the factual foundation for the alleged failure to consider the humanity, dignity and safe custody of inmates?4.Is there a legal foundation for the application’s reliance on a failure to consider the humanity, dignity and safe custody of inmates?5.What potential forms of relief arise for consideration?6.Is the decision apt to attract an order quashing it or setting it aside? 7.Is a declaration an apt form of relief here?1. What was the decision? Mr Pilcher’s application identified the decision sought to be reviewed as a decision of the Townsville Men’s Correctional Centre’s Chief Superintendent ‘to force men to sleep on the common area floors of the Centre’s accommodation areas’.[2] Read literally the application relates to any decision to house prisoners on any of the common area floors of the Centre’s accommodation areas but the filed materials indicate it was a decision relating to the Village. [2]The Chief Superintendent is actually the Chief Superintendent of the Townsville Correctional Complex, not just the Men’s Correctional Centre, but nothing turns on that. The Village is one of a variety of accommodation areas in the Centre. The Centre is divided into ‘secure’ cell-style accommodation and ‘residential’ accommodation’. Secure accommodation is typically for prisoners requiring higher levels of supervision, management and monitoring. Residential accommodation is for prisoners requiring lower levels of supervision and management. Prisoners generally start their sentence in secure accommodation and work towards transferring to residential accommodation. The progression of such transfers is influenced by considerations including behaviour in custody, individual special needs, history of drug use, employment status, risks of self-harm, medical or psychological status and escape history. Once transferred to residential accommodation, prisoners in turn progress within the available four units of residential accommodation at the Centre. Those units are the Blocks, McCann, S11 and the Village. Prisoners generally start their time in residential accommodation in the Blocks, progressing to McCann and then to S11 or the Village. It appears some prisoners may progress further, to low security accommodation beyond the Centre, including accommodation elsewhere within the broader Townsville Correctional Complex. However, Mr Pilcher understands that is not an option for prisoners serving a sentence of life imprisonment, as he is. Most prisoners moving to the Village move from McCann, which is more densely occupied than the Village. For example, most cells in McCann contain two beds, whereas it is one bed per cell in the Village huts. Since 17 August 2022 Mr Pilcher has occupied a cell in a hut in the Village and is thus his cell’s sole occupant. The decision of concern to Mr Pilcher resulted in two extra prisoners per hut being housed in the common area of huts in the Village, where Mr Pilcher is located.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

That conclusion makes what follows unnecessary in determining the application. I include it to explain why, in any event, it would not have been appropriate to grant the relief sought.5. What potential forms of relief arise for consideration? Mr Pilcher’s application seeks orders quashing or setting aside the decision - see s 30(1)(a) Judicial Review Act. He also seeks accompanying orders remitting the decision back to the Chief Superintendent to be determined in accordance with law. Such relief is a potential adjunct, per s 47(3), to an order setting aside the decision, as distinct from a form of relief in its own right, 6. Is the decision apt to attract an order quashing it or setting it aside? It is contended by the Chief Superintendent that an order quashing or setting aside the decision is only available in respect of an exercise or purported exercise of power which has an apparent legal effect; this decision not being such an exercise of power. The Applicant submits the decision ‘indeed had a legal effect, in that it’s infringed on my human rights by compromising my dignity and safety’. The order sought is an order in nature of certiorari. The effect of s 41(2) Judicial Review Act is that an order in the nature of certiorari is only available in circumstances where the Court would have been able to grant such relief in the exercise of its original or inherent jurisdiction. It is well established that the function of certiorari is to quash the legal effect or the legal consequences of the decision or order under review and that the decision or order must have legal effect or consequences in order to be quashed.[9] Thus, for an order in the nature of certiorari to be made, Mr Pilcher must demonstrate that the ‘decision’ had ‘a discernible or apparent legal effect upon rights’.[10] [9]Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564, 580.[10]Hot Holdings v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149, 159. The decision may have been adverse to Mr Pilcher’s interests but it did not have a legal effect upon his rights. The high point of Mr Pilcher’s submission to the contrary is his reliance upon s 30 Human Rights Act. These reasons have explained how s 30 has no relevant legal operation unless relief is sought on some ground other than a breach of s 58. It is not so sought here. The result is that it would not have been appropriate to make an order quashing or setting aside the decision and remitting the matter to the Chief Executive for further consideration. Mr Pilcher’s application did not in terms seek a declaration, but such relief was the subject of submissions. Such relief would involve an order declaring the rights of the parties in relation to any matter to which the decision relates – see s 30(1)(c) Judicial Review Act. Such a declaration would have the potential to impact the interests of more prisoners than Mr Pilcher. My acceptance that Mr Pilcher has standing means that every occupant of the Village huts to which the decision applies, whether they are housed on the common area floors or in their own cells, must have an interest in the potential making of a declaration. Those prisoners housed on the common area floors would have a greater interest in the making of such a declaration. Some may not want such a declaration to be made. They may prefer to put up with the existing arrangement rather than be returned to McCann. If they have prospects of progressing to low security accommodation beyond the Centre they may prefer to put up with the existing arrangement, rather than jeopardise their prospects of progression.

CITATION:	Pilcher v Townsville Men’s Correctional Centre [2025] QSC 231
PARTIES:	DANE PILCHER (Applicant) V TOWNSVILLE MEN’S CORRECTIONAL CENTRE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC 10 of 2025
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	27 May 2025
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Application dismissed. 2. If the Chief Superintendent seeks an order as to costs: (a) she must notify the Registry of that fact within 28 days; and (b) the Registry will then list this matter for further hearing as to costs (out of town parties having leave to appear by videolink) on the next available applications morning, notifying the parties and issuing a notice to produce Mr Pilcher by videolink.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – STANDING TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant currently occupies his own private room in one such ‘hut’ and is not a prisoner who is housed on the common area floors – where the Applicant contends he is nevertheless adversely affected by the decision due to the overcrowding of the ‘huts’ and its associated inconvenience – whether the Applicant is a person adversely affected by the decision – whether the Applicant has standing to bring these proceedings. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant contends that the Respondent ‘failed to consider the humanity, dignity and safe custody of inmates’ in making this decision, as per s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and s 5A of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) – whether such failure is a source of relief for the Applicant. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PREOGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS – CERTIORARI – NATURE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF REMEDY – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – where the Applicant seeks an order ‘quashing’ the decision – whether such a decision is one which has legal effect – whether an order in the nature of certiorari is available. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GENERALLY – where the Applicant prisoner applies to the Court for judicial review of the Respondent Chief Superintendent’s decision to house prisoners on the common area floors of the Correctional Centre’s ‘huts’ – whether declaratory relief would be appropriate in circumstances where not all potentially interested prisoners have had an opportunity to be heard in this application – whether there would be practical utility in declaratory…