SEIFFERT -v- THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2011] WASCA 148 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 148 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:138/2010	Heard:	2 & 3 MARCH 2011 & ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MARTIN CJ McLURE P MURPHY JA	Delivered:	8/07/11
Supplementary Delivered:	20/09/11
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order nisi discharged
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JASON ANDREW SEIFFERT THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Consequential orders Whether declaratory relief should be granted Costs
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 66 r 1
Case References:	Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SEIFFERT -v- THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2011] WASCA 148 (S) CORAM : MARTIN CJ

McLURE P

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 2 & 3 MARCH 2011 & ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 8 JULY 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACV 138 of 2010 BETWEEN : JASON ANDREW SEIFFERT

Applicant

AND

THE PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervener

Catchwords:

Consequential orders - Whether declaratory relief should be granted - Costs

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 66 r 1

Result:

Order nisi discharged

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Dr J T Schoombee

Respondent : No appearance

Intervener : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr H D Leith

Solicitors:

Applicant : Thames Legal

Respondent : No appearance

Intervener : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 8 July 2011, the court published its reasons with respect to the determination of the various issues raised by the order nisi granted in this matter ([2011] WASCA 148). In short, although the court concluded that the applicant had established that the Prisoners Review Board (the Board) had breached certain statutory obligations relating to the provision of notice of, and reasons for, its decision to cancel his parole, and of his right to seek a review of that decision, Mr Seiffert had failed to establish that the decision of the Board to cancel his parole was invalid or that it should be set aside by the court. At the time those reasons were published, the court made directions for the exchange of submissions with respect to the orders appropriately made to give effect to those reasons, and further directed the parties to advise the court whether they were content for the issues raised by those submissions to be resolved without further hearing. The applicant and the intervener have each advised the court that they do not seek a further hearing in respect of any of the issues relating…

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 Seiffert v The Prisoners Review Board 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: [2011] WASCA 148 (S)
Decision Date: 8 JULY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seiffert v The Prisoners Review Board was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr Seiffert, a prisoner, sought a declaration that his continued detention was unlawful and an order for his release. The defendant, The Prisoners Review Board, maintained that the plaintiff's detention was justified and in accordance with the law. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the plaintiff's detention was unlawful and, if so, to order his release.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's continued detention was unlawful and whether the court should grant the plaintiff the requested declaration and consequential orders. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs. The court considered the statutory framework governing the plaintiff's detention, the evidence presented by both parties, and the relevant case law on the matter.

In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's detention was not unlawful and that the board had acted within its statutory powers. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration or the consequential orders he sought. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an order for costs, as the defendant had a reasonable prospect of success in the proceedings. Consequently, the court discharged the order nisi and dismissed the plaintiff's application.

No further orders were made by the court in light of its findings. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory framework, the evidence presented, and relevant case law. The court held that the plaintiff's detention was lawful and that the board had acted within its statutory powers. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration, consequential orders, or costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order nisi discharged

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.