R v Byster - [2001] SASC 343

McKINNON v PAGET & ORS
[2001] SASC 343
Nyland J:

This is an application for judicial review. The plaintiff is a prisoner currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at Yatala Labour Prison (‘Yatala’). On 24 March 1997, he was returned to prison after breaching parole for various offences, including the offence of armed robbery. He will be eligible for parole in March 2002.
Since 6 October 2000, the plaintiff has been held in segregation in G Division, a high security unit of the prison, pursuant to a separation order made on this date. Reviews of that placement were conducted on about a weekly basis thereafter. As at the date of hearing of this application there had not been any variation or revocation of the separation order.
The first defendant named in the summons is John Paget, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services. The second defendant is Maria Bordoni (‘Ms Bordoni’), the General Manager of the Yatala Labour Prison. The third defendant is the State of South Australia.
The application for judicial review was supported by a lengthy affidavit filed by the plaintiff, which sets out in some detail the history of his incarceration. On the hearing of the application, the plaintiff gave evidence and produced a number of documents in support thereof. He subsequently filed a further affidavit which canvassed the history of incarceration since 1997. I was also provided with an affidavit of Ms Bordoni and she gave oral evidence.
Throughout these proceedings, the plaintiff appeared in person. The defendants were represented by Ms Gray of counsel. In the course of the hearing, Ms Gray objected to a number of matters raised by the plaintiff, but in light of the plaintiff’s lack of representation and the nature of the application, I permitted the plaintiff considerable latitude and did not strictly apply the rules of evidence. I should add, however, that notwithstanding his lack of legal training, the plaintiff was able to present his argument in a reasonably articulate and forceful manner.
Before turning to the legal issues which arise for determination, I propose to summarise my understanding of some of the factual background giving rise to these proceedings. I do not, however, intend to refer to all of the matters which were put to me in the course of lengthy submissions and documentation.
At the date hereof, the plaintiff is aged about 26 years. He has spent about ten years of his life in prison. Shortly after the revocation of his parole in 1997, the plaintiff was transferred to B Top at Yatala after requesting protective custody. B Top is a protective unit in B Division. On 30 May 1997, the plaintiff was transferred to G Division for assaulting a prison officer. He remained there for a week. He was returned to the mainstream population of B Division on 6 June 1997. He was, however, returned to G Division that same day for allegedly making threats. He remained there until 9 September 1997, after which…

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 R v Byster

Details

AGLC: R v Byster [2001] SASC 343
Case: [2001] SASC 343
Decision Date: 19 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McKinnon v Paget & Ors concerns a prisoner's application for judicial review of the decision to keep him in segregation at Yatala Labour Prison. The plaintiff, a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment, sought to challenge the ongoing placement in segregation, which he claimed was punitive and not in the interests of prison security or good order. The defendants, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Department for Correctional Services, the General Manager of the prison, and the State of South Australia, argued that the placement was necessary for the safety and security of the prison.

The legal issues in the case centered on whether the plaintiff's continued detention in segregation was justified under the Correctional Services Act 1982 and whether the prison authorities acted in bad faith. The court considered whether the changes in the reasons for the plaintiff's segregation required a new separation order and whether the prison authorities' decision to keep the plaintiff in segregation was exercised in good faith and within the scope of the Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff had a history of misconduct and assaults on staff, the prison authorities' decision to keep him in segregation was within their discretion and consistent with the Act. The court noted that the plaintiff's placement in segregation was intended to ensure the security and good order of the prison, and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendants. The court also concluded that although a new separation order should have been issued when the reasons for segregation changed, the failure to do so did not result in any injustice to the plaintiff.

The court ultimately refused the application for judicial review, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the prison authorities acted in bad faith or outside the scope of the Act in keeping him in segregation. The court found that the prison authorities had a legitimate basis for maintaining the plaintiff in segregation to ensure the safety and security of the prison.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be refused, and the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendants.

Orders