Clark v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [1995] QSC 7

scqs(oo7 tate Reporting Bureau 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 WILLIAMS J No 115 of 1994 GREGORY JAMES CLARK and THE QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION BRISBANE .. DATE 27/01/95 ORDER REVISED COPlES ISSUED State f-1eporting 8ureau Date L" I J.. I CJ:;- Applicant Respondent / I _. vr/ t d/ -- 1 of 4 -- 270195 lu (Williams J) HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Gregory James Clark, was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment on 1 June 1983. He is still detained in prison. Pursuant to the provisions of regulation 13 of the Corrective Services Regulations 1989 his security classification is required to be reviewed at intervals not exceeding six months. A decision as to his security classification was made by or on behalf of the respondent, the Queensland Corrective Services Commission Board, on 19 January 1994. The applicant was aggrieved by that decision and contended inter alia that there had been breaches of the rules of natural justice in the making of that particular decision. In consequence by application filed 22 February 1994 he sought a review of that decision pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991. Material was filed and the matter came before the Court on 15 March 1994 and was subsequently placed on the callover list. At a callover held at about November 1994 it was set down for hearing today. Unfortunatelyipursuant to regulation 13,the Remission and Security Reclassification Cornrnittee,as the delegate of the respondent,reviewed the applicant/s classification on 20 September 1994 and concluded for reasons which it then gave that he should retain medium security rating. That was the rating that he was given pursuant to the decision of 19 January 1994. Counsel for the respondent at the outset of the hearing today ORDER 2 10 20 30 40 50 -- 2 of 4 -- 270195 lu (Williams J) pointed out that it would be pointless this Court proceeding with a review of the decision of 19 January 1994 because even if that decision was set aside the decision of 20 September 1994 would remain operative. That appears to be correct. The applicant is concerned that the situation may well arise where his arguments as to the validity of the decisions by or on behalf of the respondent will never be adjudicated upon by the Court because in the nature of things there will always be a further review decision after he has commenced proceedings. In my view steps should be taken to ensure that there is a proper determination of the issues which the applicant wishes to raise. I do not know whether or not there is any substance in the arguments that he wishes to raise, but it is important that a Court address them and adjudicate on them. The applicant has come along to Court today in person prepared to argue as to the validity of the decision of 19 January 1994. As I have said, that is inappropriate. It seems to me that the justice of the case requires that the applicant be given leave to amend his application so that it challenges the validity of the decision of 20 September 1994. That, of course, will necessitate not only an amendment formally then made to the application but will necessitate the filing of additional affidavit material. The applicant should be given 21 days within which to do that. Then the matter should be reviewed by the Chamber Judge. Without binding the Chamber Judge, it seems to me that it will be necessary for some directions to be made with respect to a possible review of the security classification which would fall due in March of this ORDER 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 4 -- 270195 lu (Williams J) year. I also record that today the applicant is not legally represented. He has informed me that he has sought legal assistance but none has been forthcoming. There have been some decisions by Judges of this Court touching upon the statutory and regulatory provisions in question, and it is clear to me that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance. It is a situation where in the long run there would be a saving of time all round, including Court time, if the applicant had appropriate legal assistance. In my view, further consideration should be given by appropriate authorities to granting legal assistance in connection with this matter. The orders that I make will be as follows: adjourn the application to a date to be fixed; give the applicant leave to amend the application so that it seeks a review of the decision of 20 September 1994; applicant to make amendments and file further affidavit within 21 days; adjourn further consideration to the Chamber Judge; the matter to be listed by either party giving two days/ notice to the other. HIS HONOUR: I make no order as to costs. ORDER 4 10 20 30 40 50 -- 4 of 4 --