Australia, June 18 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 19:

1. HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion filed on 9 May 2025, the Commissioner of Corrective Services seeks the following relief:

"1. Pursuant to s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the Court give advance rulings as to the admissibility and / or use of the evidence in chief served by the Plaintiff.

2. Pursuant to r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, order that the following questions be determined separately, and before, the balance of the proceedings:

(a) Whether, to fall within the words 'subjected to ... treatment' and 'subjected to ... punishment or treatment' where they are used in cl 164(1)(b) or (c) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Regulation 2014, the punishment or treatment referred to must be deliberately imposed upon an inmate by the Defendant or his officers, and must involve more than the necessary consequences of incarceration in the High Risk Management Correctional Centre of an inmate who has been designated as 'extreme high risk restricted' pursuant to cl 15(3) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Regulation 2014; and

(b) Whether, to fall within the word 'punishment' where it is used in cl 164(1)(b) or

(c) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Regulation 2014, the punishment referred to must be imposed upon an inmate for a punitive purpose."

2. The parties are agreed upon the orders that should be made with respect to the preparation for the hearing of the motion and the further conduct of the proceedings, even though they are not agreed upon what the outcome of the orders sought by the Commissioner should be.

3. For example, Mr Hamzy opposes the suggestion that there should be advance rulings on his evidence pursuant to s 192A and also opposes any order pursuant to UCPR 28.2 for the separate determination of the nominated questions. Mr Hamzy considers that any final determination upon either his evidence or the two separate questions may well be illuminated by material that becomes available to the trial judge, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses for both sides. That is necessarily something that would not be available to a judge only hearing the application in advance of the final hearing.

4. The Commissioner's position is that advance rulings would be productive of significant efficiencies, particularly having regard to the amount of material upon which Mr Hamzy wishes to rely and that the proposed separate questions essentially raise issues of bare statutory construction, so that the anticipated evidence at the trial will not have any significant impact upon the outcome of the motion or assist the Court in its determination.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196d662ff64edf3bec23e346)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.