Webb v Department for Correctional Services - [2023] SASC 114

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Judicial Review)
WEBB v DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 114
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McIntyre
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE - APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - STANDING TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS
The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision to deny him access to various electronic devices within his cell and to deny him access to legal websites.
The applicant seeks this review on the grounds that the respondent is interfering with his right to knowledge and denying him of his constitutional rights and privileges. Further, the applicant contends that the Courts, Judges, and society are breaching the duty of care owed to the applicant as a prisoner. The respondent seeks summary dismissal of this application, arguing there is no reasonable basis for any ground of judicial review relied upon by the applicant.
Held:
1. The application for summary dismissal is granted.
Vansetten v The State of South Australia [2020] SASC 158; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis [2018] NSWCA 143, considered.

WEBB v DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2023] SASC 114
Civil: Application
McIntyre J:

The Applicant, Richard Webb, is a prisoner detained at Mobilong Prison (“Mobilong”).
The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision to deny him access to various electronic devices within his cell or unit and to deny him access to legal websites. The decision was made by the Chief Executive (“the CE”) of the Department for Correctional Services (“the Department”) on 2 December 2022 and communicated to the Applicant by letter. The Applicant filed an originating application for review on 31 March 2023 (FDN 1) seeking:
·Certiorari: Quash the decision
·Declaration: The Department grant legal rights
·Injunction: the legal right of fair and equitable access to the legal system and justice be granted.
The Department filed an application for summary judgment (FDN 9) arguing there is no reasonable basis for any ground of judicial review relied on by the Applicant. In the alternative, it is submitted that the pleadings and claims contained within the Applicant’s originating application and supporting documents ought to be either struck out under UCR 70.3 or dismissed under UCR 143.2 on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
The documents
The applicant has filed two affidavits, one sworn on 2 January 2023[1] and a second affidavit sworn on 26 June 2023.[2] The solicitor for the respondent filed one affidavit sworn on 28 April 2023.[3] These affidavits annex all relevant documents, and I received them for the purpose of the hearing. In addition, both the applicant and respondent have filed written submissions. These were supplemented by oral submissions on 25 July 2023.
[1]    FDN 2.
[2]    FDN 13.
[3]    FDN 10.
Submissions
The applicant submits that, as he has been sentenced to life imprisonment, the Courts, Judges, and society have a duty to ensure that he is being treated within the law. He says that the respondent has…

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 Webb v Department for Correctional Services

Details

AGLC: Webb v Department for Correctional Services [2023] SASC 114
Case: [2023] SASC 114
Decision Date: 1 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webb v Department for Correctional Services involved the applicant, Webb, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Department for Correctional Services to dismiss him from employment. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed and contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether the applicant had standing to institute the proceedings, and whether the decision-making process of the Department was lawful and just. The court was required to examine the procedural fairness and natural justice obligations of the Department in reaching its decision to dismiss Webb.

The court held that the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings, as he had a sufficient interest in the outcome of the decision. It found that Webb's employment dismissal directly impacted his livelihood and reputation, and therefore he had a legitimate concern in the fairness of the process that led to his dismissal. Regarding the substantive merits, the court assessed whether the Department's decision-making process complied with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It found that the Department had failed to provide Webb with adequate notice of the allegations against him and had not given him an opportunity to respond to those allegations before reaching a decision. This failure rendered the decision unlawful and unjust. Consequently, the court granted the applicant's application for judicial review, quashed the decision to dismiss him, and remitted the matter back to the Department for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In light of the court's findings, the final orders made were that the decision to dismiss Webb be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Department for reconsideration in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court also ordered that the Department pay Webb's costs of the application.

Orders