Legal Research
Cases
Rainsford v Victoria

Rainsford v Victoria

Link copied

Case Copied 19 July 2007 57 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rainsford v Victoria [2007] FCA 1059
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – prisoner with back injury – prisoner transferred between prisons and placed in management cell – whether transport and accommodation aggravated condition – whether failure to provide adequate exercise facilities aggravated condition – whether a ‘service’ provided – whether applicant required to comply with a requirement or condition – whether applicant could comply with requirement or condition
Held: Applicant did not prove that respondents aggravated his condition. Transportation of prisoners and cell allocation are not services provided by a prison to prisoners. No requirement or condition that the applicant was unable to comply with.
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss 4, 6, 24, 122
Corrections Act 1986 (Vic), ss 4, 8A, 21,
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Corrections Regulations 1998 (Vic), regs 22, 44
Rainsford v Victoria [2001] FMCA 115, cited
Rainsford v Victoria (2004) 184 FLR 110, cited
Rainsford v Victoria (2005) 144 FCR 279, considered
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1, considered
Farah v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 65, doubted
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349, cited
Secretary of the Department of Justice and Industrial Relations v Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (2003) 11 Tas R 324, cited
Hurst v Queensland (2006) 151 FCR 562, followed
Hurst v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405, cited
Clarke v Catholic Education Office (2003) 202 ALR 340, cited
JAMES ERNEST RAINSFORD v STATE OF VICTORIA AND GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
VID 29 OF 2006
SUNDBERG J
19 JULY 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 29 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

JAMES ERNEST RAINSFORD
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA
First Respondent

GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JULY 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application and of all proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court, including all reserved costs, in each court.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 29 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

JAMES ERNEST RAINSFORD
Applicant

AND:

STATE OF VICTORIA
First Respondent

GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SUNDBERG J

DATE:

19 JULY 2007

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND

This case involves claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) by a prisoner with a back injury. The claims arise out of transport that he undertook between various prisons and courts, and a period of detention in the Charlotte Management Unit of Port Phillip Prison.
Between 17 July 1998 and his release on 5 March 2004, the applicant, Mr Rainsford, was a prisoner of the State of Victoria. At various times, he was held at three different prisons: Port Phillip Prison, Ararat Prison and Barwon Prison.
Pursuant to s 4…

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 Rainsford v Victoria 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: [2007] FCA 1059
Decision Date: 19 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rainsford v Victoria involves a dispute regarding the treatment and management of the applicant's back injury while he was incarcerated in Victoria. The applicant, Mr Rainsford, was a prisoner who sustained a back injury in 1996 and underwent surgery in December of that year. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment in April 1999 and has been in custody since then. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Secretary to the Department of Human Services, breached their statutory obligations under the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) by failing to provide adequate medical care for Mr Rainsford's back condition.

The court was tasked with determining whether the respondents breached their statutory duty to provide appropriate medical care to Mr Rainsford. This involved examining the medical evidence provided by various experts, including neurosurgeons and orthopaedic specialists, and assessing the reliability and interpretation of different medical tests, such as CT and MRI scans. The court also needed to consider the relevance and admissibility of evidence from a related proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Mr Rainsford had sought judicial review of the decision to transfer him to a different prison unit.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondents did not breach their statutory obligations. The court was satisfied that the medical staff provided by St Vincent's Correctional Health Service, who maintained separate medical files, were competent and had acted appropriately in managing Mr Rainsford's condition. The court also concluded that the respondents were not directly responsible for the actions of the medical staff and that they had acted in accordance with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application and all proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application and of all proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court, including all reserved costs, in each court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I must also mention a related proceeding. In September 2001, Mr Rainsford commenced a related proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking judicial review of the decision to move him to the Charlotte Management Unit. That proceeding was dismissed on 23 November 2001. It is not challenged in this proceeding, and nor could it be. I mention it only because some of the affidavit evidence given in that proceeding has been put in evidence before me.THE EVIDENCEMr Rainsford’s Condition Mr Rainsford sustained a back injury while working as a greenkeeper in 1996. He was operated on by Mr Jensen, a neurosurgeon, in December 1996, for a disc prolapse in the L5/S1 area. Mr Rainsford gave evidence that Mr Jensen advised him that he should undertake a stretching and exercise regime to guard against back pain and minimise the risk of aggravating his condition. Ordinarily, he does this regime daily. On 9 April 1999 Mr Rainsford was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria to a period of imprisonment of 5 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 4 years. The conviction was for assault with intent to rape and two counts of wilful and obscene exposure. In early 1999, while in prison on remand, he was examined by a visiting orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Rush, who provided him with a medical certificate noting that he was not fit to undertake work involving lifting more than 10 kg or repetitive bending. Prior to obtaining the certificate, he had done several months of manual labour in prison. Mr Rainsford was seen by an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Phillips, for medico-legal purposes on 3 March 2000. In his report of the same day, Dr Phillips noted that Mr Rainsford’s condition appeared to have deteriorated since his operation. He offered two possible diagnoses for this deterioration. The first was a further prolapse of the back, the second was post-operative scarring. He recommended that further tests be carried out to determine which of these alternatives applied. A CT scan was conducted on 26 April 2000 and an MRI scan on 11 August 2000. There was some disagreement as to the interpretations of these scans. The MRI scan noted that as well as some scarring at the L5/S1 where the surgery had taken place there was a mild to moderate disc bulge at T12/L1. The CT scan, on the other hand, made no mention of a secondary disc bulge. In his oral evidence, Dr Phillips preferred to rely on the MRI scan’s reference to a bulge at T12/L1, but Dr Dohrmann, a neurosurgeon called by the respondents, gave evidence that in his opinion an MRI scan of a patient who has undergone back surgery is unreliable and that the CT scan should be preferred. During his time in prison, Mr Rainsford was examined by a number of medical practitioners as part of an outpatients clinic that was available at least one day per week. It appears that all of the medical staff at Port Phillip Prison were provided by St Vincent’s Correctional Health Service. There is no suggestion that any of them was an employee of either respondent or that the respondents were directly responsible for their actions; Mr Allgood, then the General Manager of Ararat and Langi Kal Kal prisons, gave evidence that they were contractors of the State. St Vincent’s Correctional Health Service kept medical files for prisoners. These were separate from the Individual Management Plan (IMP) files maintained by the respondents and were not accessible to the respondents. The contents of the medical files were only accessible to medical staff and prison authorities were only aware of information on medical files if it had been separately provided to them, for example if a certificate had been placed on a prisoner’s IMP file. Medical certificates in evidence in this case fall into this category.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SUNDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SUNDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 29 OF 2006

JUDGE:	SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 29 OF 2006

JUDGE:	SUNDBERG J
DATE:	19 JULY 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE