Rich v Ryan - [2016] VSCA 337

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0020

HUGO RICH	Applicant
v
BRETT RYAN (acting in his capacity as General Manager of H M Prison Barwon and for Corrections Victoria)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, SANTAMARIA and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 October 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 337
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VSC 785 (Garde J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Prison administration – Application for review of administrative decisions – Applicant prisoner sought access to CD containing legal materials – Access refused – Interlocutory application for mandatory order – Whether order available – Whether applicant’s access to court impeded – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Applicant appeared in person
For the Respondent	Mr P Hanks QC with Ms S M C Fitzgerald	Ms D Coombs for Victorian Government Solicitors Office

MAXWELL P
SANTAMARIA JA
FERGUSON JA:

Summary

The applicant, Hugo Rich, is a prisoner at H M Prison Barwon (the ‘prison’). In September 2015, he instituted a proceeding in the Trial Division of this Court, seeking judicial review of various decisions made by the General Manager of the prison, Mr Brett Ryan, relating to his treatment in custody. On 13 November 2015, Mr Ryan filed an application to have Mr Rich’s claim struck out.

By summons dated 2 December 2015, Mr Rich applied for what he described as a ‘coercive order’, to require Mr Ryan to give him access to a CD (or the data on the CD). Mr Rich argued that he needed the legal resources on the CD in order to prepare for the judicial review proceedings, including the strike out application. On 4 December 2015, the primary judge, sitting in the Practice Court, dismissed the summons.[1]
[1]Rich v Ryan [2015] VSC 785 (‘Reasons’).

Mr Rich has applied for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his summons. He has also filed a summons in this proceeding, seeking orders against Mr Ryan on the ground that he is in contempt of court. For reasons which follow, we would refuse both applications.

The proceeding at first instance

In an affidavit filed in support of the December 2015 summons, Mr Rich said that he had applied to the prison in September 2015 to be provided with, or to be permitted to receive through the mail, certain material including ‘communications’, legislation and case law, legal publications, Hansard extracts, a Worksafe publication, a LexisNexis catalogue, and product codes for office stationery supplies. Mr Rich said that he needed this material to prepare for the judicial review proceedings and for a High Court application which he wishes to bring in relation to this Court’s dismissal of his conviction appeal.[2]
[2]Rich v The Queen [2014] VSCA 126.

Mr Rich told the judge that he had prosecuted this request on a number of occasions between September and November 2015, and was eventually told by a prison officer that he would…

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 Rich v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Rich v Ryan [2016] VSCA 337
Case: [2016] VSCA 337
Decision Date: 20 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rich v Ryan involved an application by an inmate of HMP Long Lartin for judicial review of decisions made by prison authorities that denied him access to a CD containing legal materials. The applicant argued that the refusal to provide access to the CD impeded his ability to effectively conduct legal research and represent himself in a separate matter. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court had to determine whether the applicant had standing to seek a mandatory order and whether his access to the court was impeded.

The court needed to decide whether the applicant had standing to seek a mandatory order for access to the CD and whether this refusal impeded his access to the court. The primary issue was whether the applicant’s right to access the court was impeded by the denial of the CD, and if so, whether a mandatory order was an appropriate remedy. The court also had to consider the relevant case law concerning the scope of judicial review in the context of prison administration decisions.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant did not have standing to seek a mandatory order as the refusal to provide access to the CD did not impede his access to the court. The court held that the applicant’s ability to conduct legal research and represent himself was not substantially impeded by the denial of the CD. The court emphasised that the decisions of prison authorities in relation to access to legal materials were matters of prison administration and discipline, which were not subject to judicial review unless there was a significant impediment to accessing the court. The court refused leave to appeal the decision.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the application for judicial review and refused leave to appeal. The court held that the applicant’s access to the court was not impeded by the refusal to provide access to the CD, and therefore, a mandatory order was not available. The court clarified the limited scope of judicial review in the context of prison administration decisions and emphasised the importance of maintaining the balance between the rights of prisoners and the need for effective prison management.

Orders