Kaddour and Turkmani v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2003] NSWSC 808

Kaddour and Turkmani v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2003] NSWSC 808

The Commissioner exercised his discretion under section 26 after considering the relevant applications and material, including security risks, and did not act in clear infringement of the Act or regulations; therefore, no basis existed for judicial review or mandamus.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kalid Kaddour; Plaintiff: Bassam Turkmani; Defendant: Commissioner for Corrective Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Hearing and Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Prisoner Leave, Exercise of Statutory Discretion
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Prisoner Leave Exercise of Statutory Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalid Kaddour

Plaintiff

Bassam Turkmani

Plaintiff

Commissioner for Corrective Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Hearing and Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner for Corrective Services lawfully exercised discretion under section 26 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to refuse leave to prisoners to attend a family funeral
  2. 2 Whether the refusal involved legal error justifying judicial intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner exercised his discretion under section 26 after considering the relevant applications and material, including security risks, and did not act in clear infringement of the Act or regulations; therefore, no basis existed for judicial review or mandamus.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • No order as to costs