Ghasemi v NSW Department of Corrective Services [2019] NSWSC 207

Ghasemi v NSW Department of Corrective Services [2019] NSWSC 207

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff established no error of law on the face of the record and no jurisdictional error. The Commissioner personally exercised the power under the classification regulation, was entitled to obtain and accept the PRLC recommendation, was required to consider the plaintiff’s likely removal from Australia, permissibly considered the plaintiff’s risk profile and EQUIPS Foundation Program participation, did not inflexibly apply policy, and did not deny procedural fairness, act ultra vires, act for an improper purpose, act in bad faith, display bias, or make a legally unreasonable decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) Concerning Refusal to Vary Prison Classification / Principal Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'ultra Vires' 'prison Classification' 'serious Offenders Review Council' 'immigration Status and Removal From Australia' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'inflexible Application of Policy' 'legal Unreasonableness']
['administrative Law' 'prison Law' 'migration Law'] ['error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'ultra Vires' 'prison Classification' 'serious Offenders Review Council' 'immigration Status and Removal From Australia' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'inflexible Application of Policy' 'legal Unreasonableness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) Concerning Refusal to Vary Prison Classification / Principal Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commissioner’s refusal to vary the plaintiff’s classification from C2 to C3 involved error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error.' 'Whether the Pre-Release Leave Committee or the Commissioner denied the plaintiff procedural fairness or defeated any legitimate expectation.' 'Whether the Commissioner’s decision was ultra vires because the plaintiff was not a serious offender.' 'Whether the Commissioner was actually or apprehendedly biased by considering the plaintiff’s immigration status and resettlement needs in Australia.' 'Whether the Commissioner inflexibly applied policy by requiring assessment for, and completion of, the EQUIPS Foundation Program if eligible.' 'Whether the Commissioner took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account relevant considerations.' 'Whether the decision was made for an improper purpose or in bad faith.' 'Whether the decision was legally unreasonable or irrational.' 'Whether the Commissioner personally exercised the relevant classification power.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff established no error of law on the face of the record and no jurisdictional error. The Commissioner personally exercised the power under the classification regulation, was entitled to obtain and accept the PRLC recommendation, was required to consider the plaintiff’s likely removal from Australia, permissibly considered the plaintiff’s risk profile and EQUIPS Foundation Program participation, did not inflexibly apply policy, and did not deny procedural fairness, act ultra vires, act for an improper purpose, act in bad faith, display bias, or make a legally unreasonable decision.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the summons.' 'Make no order as to costs.']