Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA)

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

SMART -v- PRISONER REVIEW BOARD (WA) [2012] WASC 48



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASC 48
Case No:CIV:2968/20118 FEBRUARY 2012
Coram:PRITCHARD J16/02/12
6Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to file the originating motion, amended in accordance with these reasons
B
PDF Version
Parties:ANDREW JACOB SMART
PRISONER REVIEW BOARD (WA)

Catchwords:
Application for leave to file originating motion
Abuse of process
Litigant in person
Order 67 r 5 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 67 r 5
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 115A

Case References:
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Miketic v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASC 176
Smart v WA Police [2011] WASC 99
Subotic v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASC 177
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : SMART -v- PRISONER REVIEW BOARD (WA) [2012] WASC 48 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 8 FEBRUARY 2012 DELIVERED : 16 FEBRUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2968 of 2011 BETWEEN : ANDREW JACOB SMART
    Plaintiff

    AND

    PRISONER REVIEW BOARD (WA)
    Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for leave to file originating motion - Abuse of process - Litigant in person - Order 67 r 5 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 67 r 5


Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 115A

Result:

Leave to file the originating motion, amended in accordance with these reasons


(Page 2)



Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : In person
    Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : In person
    Defendant : No appearance



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

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Miketic v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASC 176
Smart v WA Police [2011] WASC 99
Subotic v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASC 177
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534


(Page 3)
    PRITCHARD J:




Background

1 Mr Smart is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment. In September 2011 he sought to file an originating motion (the original motion), supported by a statutory declaration, in this court. In the original motion, Mr Smart sought 'an order of parole / and - or compensation'. The original motion did not set out any grounds for the application. The Principal Registrar refused to file the original motion without the leave of a judge having been first obtained, pursuant to O 67 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC).

2 Mr Smart has now filed an originating motion for leave to file his original motion (the leave application). The leave application was supported by an affidavit which largely…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) 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
[2012] WASC 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Western Australia involved an application by the applicant, Smart, who sought leave to file an originating motion against the Prisoner Review Board of Western Australia. Smart, proceeding as a litigant in person, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Prisoner Review Board regarding his incarceration. The court was tasked with determining whether Smart's application met the criteria for leave to proceed with his claim under Order 67 rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA). The legal issues before the court included whether Smart's application demonstrated a sufficient arguable case for leave to be granted and whether there were any grounds for the court to consider an abuse of process in Smart's conduct.

The court considered the legal framework and the circumstances of the application. It examined whether Smart had a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of his claim and whether there were any countervailing considerations, such as the potential for an abuse of process. The court noted that an applicant for judicial review must demonstrate that they have a reasonable prospect of establishing the illegality of the decision in question. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Smart's conduct in pursuing the application amounted to an abuse of the court's process. After thorough consideration, the court found that Smart had demonstrated an arguable case and that the application did not amount to an abuse of process. The court therefore granted leave for Smart to file the originating motion, with the condition that it be amended in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to file the originating motion, amended in accordance with these reasons

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.