ID, PF and DV v Director General, Department of Juvenile Justice and Anor [2008] NSWSC 966

ID, PF and DV v Director General, Department of Juvenile Justice and Anor [2008] NSWSC 966

The First Defendant was required to accord procedural fairness before exercising the power under s.28 Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to transfer the Plaintiffs from juvenile detention to an adult correctional centre, given the substantial impact and deprivation of procedural protections; that obligation was not met because the decision making process did not allow sufficient notice, access to materials or an opportunity for informed submissions, and failed to consider individual circumstances and relevant statutory objects. The transfer decisions were vitiated and set aside.

Parties
Plaintiff: ID; Plaintiff: PF; Plaintiff: DV; First Defendant: Director General, Department of Juvenile Justice; Second Defendant: Commissioner for Corrective Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Transfer decisions set aside.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Children (detention Centres) Act 1987, Children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, Exercise of Administrative Discretion, Parole, Inflexible Application of Policy, Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations
Administrative Law Criminal Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Children (detention Centres) Act 1987 Children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Exercise of Administrative Discretion Parole +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ID

Plaintiff

PF

Plaintiff

DV

Plaintiff

Director General, Department of Juvenile Justice

First Defendant

Commissioner for Corrective Services

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant was required to accord procedural fairness before making a transfer decision under s.28 of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was denied to the Plaintiffs in the s.28 transfer process
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant failed to consider relevant factors in decision-making under s.28

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant was required to accord procedural fairness before exercising the power under s.28 Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to transfer the Plaintiffs from juvenile detention to an adult correctional centre, given the substantial impact and deprivation of procedural protections; that obligation was not met because the decision making process did not allow sufficient notice, access to materials or an opportunity for informed submissions, and failed to consider individual circumstances and relevant statutory objects. The transfer decisions were vitiated and set aside.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Transfer decisions set aside.

Orders

  • Declaration that the First Defendant failed to accord the Plaintiffs procedural fairness prior to directing their transfer under s.28 Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987
  • Order that the transfer direction for each Plaintiff be set aside