Rich v Ryan - [2015] VSC 785

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2015 05215

HUGO ALISTAIR RICH	Plaintiff
v
BRETT RYAN (ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING GENERAL MANAGER OF H.M PRISON BARWON AND FOR CORRECTIONS VICTORIA)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Garde J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 December 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rich v Ryan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 785

---

PRACTICE – Request by prisoners for provision of CD media outside the parameters of the Commissioner’s requirements relating to prisoner computers – Advanced stage of strike out application – Lack of need for CD media in the interests of justice – Prisoner entitled to access and receipt of legal material by other means – Security risk and risk to IT system – Request for access to CD media refused.

---

APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Ms D. Coombs, solicitor for the defendant

HIS HONOUR[1]:

Introduction

[1]This is an edited ruling of an oral judgment given on 4 December 2015.

1 This is the return of a summons dated 2 December 2015 in a proceeding commenced by originating motion. Paragraph 1 of the summons seeks what it describes as a coercive order, a declaratory judgment or order and binding declarations of right. None of these are appropriately made in an interlocutory application of this nature. The summons is not in a proper form and cannot be successful as to the form of relief sought from the Court.

2 Mr Hugo Rich (‘the plaintiff’) requests access to CD media containing electronic files,[2] which he says are relevant to the proceeding and to a Special Leave Application which he proposes to bring in the High Court of Australia in relation to his previous conviction.

[2]Affidavit of Hugo Alistair Rich dated 2 December 2015 (‘2 December 2015 affidavit’) [3]; “ … communications, legislation, historical Hansard records, case authority, legal publications, Guideline document from Worksave authority, an abridged copy extracted from the current electronic NexisLexis Legal Publications Catalogue, an extract of both price and description, and product codes for an office stationary supplies, a publication to assist in the pleading of statutory provisions, and other sundry files required for that particular matter, and also a proposed pending High Court of Australia application …” [sic]

3 The main issue argued before the Court is whether the plaintiff should receive the requested CD media in the circumstances of this case.

4 The solicitor for Mr Brett Ryan (acting in his capacity as the Acting General Manager of H.M Barwon and for Corrections Victoria) (‘the defendant’), drew my attention to the operative guidelines for the prison governing access to CDs and DVDs entitled ‘Commissioner's Requirements – Prisoner Computers’.[3] This directive, published by the Corrections Victoria Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’), is administrative in character, and does not have effect as law. However, it is submitted that the Commissioner’s Requirements are relevant to the exercise of my discretion in this…

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 [2015] VSC 785
Case: [2015] VSC 785
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rich v Ryan is a case where the plaintiff, a prisoner, sought the provision of CD media outside the parameters set by the Commissioner’s requirements relating to prisoner computers. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that access to CD media was necessary for his legal representation, while the Commissioner opposed the request citing security risks and potential damage to the IT system.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's need for CD media outweighed the Commissioner's concerns. The legal issues revolved around the balance between a prisoner's right to access legal material and the need to maintain security and operational integrity within the prison system. The court had to consider the necessity of the CD media for the plaintiff's legal representation against the potential risks posed by its use.

The court found that the plaintiff's request for CD media was not necessary in the interests of justice, as he was already entitled to access and receive legal material by other means. The potential security risks and the risk to the IT system were deemed significant enough to justify the Commissioner's refusal of the request. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny access to CD media.

No further orders were made by the court, and the plaintiff's application was struck out.

Orders