Farr, Scrivener, Kidd, Kilduff, Alincic, Aston, Hill & Ors v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1999] QSC 269

~ 7()74 State Reporting sc 9~/f).69 Bureau ~f'I'!~ -TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDiNGS Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION MOYNIHAN J No 1028 of 1999 GLENN PATRICK FARR LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER ROBERT DOUGLAS KIDD PETER DAVID KILDUFF OLIVER ALINCIC NEIL ASTON RODNEY THOMAS HILL BRADLEY JAMIE LUCEV PHILLIP GRAEME ABELL and QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION BRISBANE .. DATE 28/07/99 JUDGMENT 1 REVISED COPfES ISSUED State Reporting Bu~u Date /3/ f' / First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff Third Plaintiff Fourth Plaintiff Fifth Plaintiff Sixth Plaintiff Seventh Plaintiff Eighth Plaintiff Ninth Plaintiff Defendant 1°111111', Thc !.:IIV Courts, (;lOlllogC Strcd, Brisl':IIIC, Qo -llllll) Tclcphllul:: (07) J!-l7 -lJ(,O F:I'(: (07) .1!-l7 5;;.12 -- 1 of 3 -- 280799 T1/PMD18 M/T 4411/99 (Moynihan J) HIS HONOUR: The matter presently before me is before me because on 21 April, for reasons which I published, I made declarations concerning the holding of a number of prisoners in circumstances which constituted segregation for the purposes of the relevant Act. I will not repeat what I said there, but I provided for an opportunity to make further submissions of administrative orders which were made after the proceedings were commenced but before they were argued before me; those orders were designed to rectify the position which is canvassed in the reasons that I published earlier. One of the concerns that I had was whether it was appropriate to declare that the incarceration of the various applicants between the date of their originally being put in what was in effect segregated custody and the making of the administrative orders which purported to rectify it was unlawful or whether the unlawfulness was confined, if that be the correct word, to the detention in the maximum security unit which constituted segregation. I received written submissions in respect of that and that being supplemented by some short oral submissions. The plaintiffs now seek declarations in terms of the unlawfulness of segregated incarceration as distinct from incarceration in general. In my view such are a proper reflection of the legal consequences of the issues which I canvassed in the reasons I 2 JUDGMENT 10 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 280799 T1/PMD18 M/T 4411/99 (Moynihan J) published on 21 April. In other words, in order for the applicants to be lawfully incarcerated in the Woodford Correctional Centre's maximum security unit the statutory conditions which were canvassed in the reasons earlier published had to be complied with. Since they were not it is, in my view, appropriate to make the declarations now sought in respect of the periods between the prisoners being placed and detained unlawfully in the security unit and the orders which were made after the proceedings were commenced, which were, as I say, designed to rectify that position. I order in terms of the annexure to the applicants' final outline which I have detached and initialled. The respondent should pay the applicants' costs to be taxed. 3 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --