White v Lacey - [2012] VSC 175

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 2012 00192

GREGORY WHITE	Plaintiff
v
BRETT LACEY - THE GOVERNOR OF BEECHWORTH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 May 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	White v Lacey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 175

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Prison context – Claim by prisoner against governor – Whether relief in the nature of mandamus should be ordered – Proceeding summarily dismissed – Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) ss 21(1), 22A(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Appeared in person
For the Defendant	Mr T P Mitchell	Legal Services, Corrections Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff is Gregory White, a long term prisoner at the Beechworth Correctional Centre (‘the prison’). The defendant is the Governor of the prison.

The Governor’s powers and duties are contained in the Corrections Act 1986 (‘the Act’). Relevantly, s 21(1) of the Act provides for the Governor’s duties:

(1)The Governor of a prison is responsible for the management, security and good order of the prison and the safe custody and welfare of the prisoners.

Section 22A(1) of the Act provides for powers of the Governor:

(1)A Governor has and may exercise all or any of the powers or functions of a prison officer or escort officer under this Act.
(2)An exercise by a Governor of any power or function under subsection (1) in relation to a matter prevails over the exercise by a prison officer or escort officer of that power or function in relation to that matter.

On 22 November 2011, a prison supervisor informed prisoners, including Mr White, of an election to be held that day to elect a prisoner representative. The election was conducted during the day. There were two main candidates – Mr White and a Mr Mantivani. There was campaigning by both parties.

Next, the Governor informed Mr White that he had received the most votes in the election. The Governor said, however, that:

5As far as I believe, you had the most votes and [prisoner] Mantivani was second. We have nothing to do with it though and you’ll have to work it out between yourself, Mantivani and other bloke on the job [the by-standing non elected prisoner and paperwork person Brian Bonka].[1]

[1]Affidavit of Gregory Eric White sworn 14 December 2011, [5].

Later, a prison officer told Mr White he had received seven more votes than Mr Mantivani. It was a close election between rival candidates and, as Mr White described them, their respective ‘constituents’.

On 1 December 2011, Mr White and Mr Mantivani met with the prison supervisor who had announced the election on 22 November 2011. In his affidavit, Mr White deposed:

8On Thursday the 1^st of December prisoner Mantivani and I were called into Supervisor Nesbit’s office where we were given the ultimatum of working together as the reps, or…

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 White v Lacey

Details

AGLC: White v Lacey [2012] VSC 175
Case: [2012] VSC 175
Decision Date: 3 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr White, brought a claim against the defendant, Mr Lacey, the governor of a correctional facility, seeking relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Mr White alleged that he had been denied certain benefits and privileges available to other prisoners under the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic). The case was heard and dismissed by the County Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the claim was justiciable and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.

The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim for mandamus was justiciable, given the context of prison administration. The court considered whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the claim and whether the issues raised were suitable for judicial review. The court also examined whether the relief sought was appropriate and whether there were any statutory provisions that precluded the granting of such relief. Ultimately, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff's claim should proceed or be summarily dismissed.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not justiciable. It found that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the claim, as the issues raised were matters of prison administration that were not suitable for judicial review. The court noted that the relief sought, a writ of mandamus, was not appropriate in this context. Furthermore, the court found that the statutory provisions of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) precluded the granting of such relief. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim summarily.

The court made no orders for costs. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed without any order as to costs, reflecting the court's view that the proceedings were without merit and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any entitlement to the relief sought.

Orders