Webb v Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services - [2023] SASC 42

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
WEBB v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 42
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bampton
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - SUMMARY DISPOSAL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Application for summary judgment by respondent where applicant seeks judicial review of decision to regress him in the prison regime management system for failing to comply with directions to wear a mask during a COVID-19 outbreak at Mobilong prison, and breaching the contract he had signed for placement in the Ross unit at Mobilong – whether the decision to regress the applicant was made pursuant to s 24(2) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) – whether the conduct giving rise to the decision was an alleged breach of the Correctional Services Regulations 2016 (SA) – whether there is any reasonable basis for any grounds of review relied on by the applicant.
Held: Application for summary judgment granted – there is no reasonable basis for any ground of judicial review relied on by the applicant.
Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) ss 7, 24, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 83; Correctional Services Regulations 2016 (SA) reg 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23; Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 (SA), referred to.
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; National Companies & Securities Commission v News Corp Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296; Lymberopoulos v Police [2006] SASC 360; McEvoy v Lobban (1989) 48 A Crim R 412; Bromley v McGowan & Anor (1994) 178 LSJS 1; Fyfe v The State of South Australia [2000] SASC 84, considered.

WEBB v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 42
Civil: Application

BAMPTON J: Richard Webb is a prisoner detained at Mobilong Prison (“Mobilong”). Mr Webb was, until 24 January 2022, accommodated in the Ross unit cottages at Mobilong. On 24 January 2022, Mr Webb was regressed to the Angas unit cottages at Mobilong for failing to comply with verbal directions with respect to the wearing of masks and for breaching a contract he had signed for placement in the Ross unit. The decision to regress him was made by a delegate of the Chief Executive (“the CE”) of the Department of Correctional Services (“the Department”).
Mr Webb has sought judicial review of the decision to regress him, and the Department has brought an application for summary judgment arguing there is no reasonable basis for any ground of judicial review relied on by Mr Webb.
The regime management system overview
Prisoners who have been assessed as medium or low security are accommodated at Mobilong, an open campus style prison, comprising six units named Sturt, Light, Angas, Murray, Eyre, and Ross (“the units”).
Prisoners detained in the custody of the CE of the Department pursuant to s 24 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) (“the…

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 Webb v Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services 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: [2023] SASC 42
Decision Date: 30 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Webb filed an application for judicial review against the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services, seeking to challenge the denial of judicial process under the Correctional Services Act 1982. The Department responded with an application for summary judgment, asserting that Mr Webb's grounds for review lacked merit. The central legal issues before the court involved the validity of the decision made under the Act and whether Mr Webb's claims of jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, misfeasance in public office, and negligence had any reasonable basis. The court's analysis focused on the Department's adherence to the statutory framework and internal procedures in denying Mr Webb's request for judicial process.

The court found that Mr Webb's claims did not establish any reasonable basis for judicial intervention. The decision-making process was in line with the standard operating procedures and met the criteria set out in the Act. The Department's reliance on the standard operating procedure and the evidence provided by the General Manager of Mobilong demonstrated that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements. The court concluded that there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error, and the claims of misfeasance and negligence were not substantiated. Consequently, the court granted the Department's application for summary judgment and dismissed Mr Webb's judicial review application.

In light of the court's decision, the Department's application for summary judgment was successful, and Mr Webb's judicial review application was dismissed. The court ordered that the proceedings be stayed or dismissed, and no further relief was granted to Mr Webb. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory and procedural requirements in administrative decision-making and highlighted the rigorous standards required for successful judicial review claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

On 14 July 2022, Mr Webb filed an application for judicial review complaining that the decision was made with jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness, misfeasance in public office, and negligence (“the judicial review application”). The judicial review application is supported by his affidavits affirmed 17 June 2022[4] and 28 September 2022.[5] Mr Webb challenges the “denial, refusal of a judicial process requested under Correctional Services Act 1982, section 42A to 46”. Mr Webb seeks orders for:1.Certiorari: Quash the decision to deny judicial process.2.Prohibition: Judicial process be granted.3.Declaration: the Department grant legal rights and award judicial process.[4] FDN 4.[5] FDN 13.The Department’s application for summary judgment By interlocutory application filed 12 August 2022,[6] the Department seeks summary judgment in respect of the judicial review application, arguing there is no reasonable basis for any ground of review relied upon by Mr Webb, nor any other relief sought by him (“the Department’s application”). The Department argues the decision was made pursuant to s 24(2) of the Act.[6] FDN 8.The affidavit of Michael Wayne Dent, Mobilong General Manager The Department’s application is supported by the affidavit of Michael Wayne Dent affirmed 12 August 2022 (“the Dent affidavit”).[7] Mr Dent has been the General Manager of Mobilong since 24 January 2022 and has been employed within the Department for 19 years. Mr Dent says he accessed the electronic record system maintained by the Department, the Justice Information System (“JIS”), in preparing the Dent affidavit. [7] FDN 10. Exhibited to the Dent affidavit is a copy of the current version (as at the date of the Dent affidavit) of the standard operating procedure relating to the regime system approved 23 June 2021, titled Standard Operating Procedure “SOP‑047‑Regime Management” (“the SOP-047”).[8] Clause 3.2.4 of the SOP‑047 provides as follows:[8] FDN 10, exhibit MWD‑1.3.2.4Regime management should be used as part of the case management process to encourage prisoners to progress to the lowest level of supervision with respect to individual needs. Therefore movement between an institution’s regimes must be linked to:a) meeting established prisoner responsibilities and regime criteria;b) review of behaviour against established standards;c) a willingness to meet the requirements of sentence plan;d) warnings that are case noted; ande) incident reports.(Emphasis in original) Clause 3.2.5 of the SOP-047 provides that prisoners (except those who progress from an induction regime and those placed on an intensive management regime following separation) must be provided with a change of regime notification (SOP 047-F001) for each regime progression and regression. By reference to clause 3.2.8, a regime regression should take place when a prisoner is unwilling to meet the responsibilities or standards of behaviour of their current regime, or no longer meets the criteria required for the regime under which they are managed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.