Courts have long been reluctant to interfere ‘in the discipline, administration or management of prisoners’6. This case says (at ) that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, a judicial officer ‘should be slow to interfere with administrative decisions taken by those tasked with running prisons’7.
This policy bias against review applies only to the extent that bad faith, improper purpose or extreme unreasonableness are not shown. Although non-interference with operational decisions belongs more to the zone of administrative law, this case shows how prisons legislation is read down similarly
This case is from Episode 37 of interpretationNOW!
6 Modica (1994) 77 A Crim R 82 (at 88), Fyfe  SASC 84 (at ).