| M was involuntarily transferred from a medium security penitentiary to a maximum-security penitentiary on the grounds that he had been identified in numerous IPSO reports as being a main source of illegal drug activity within the prison. M sought relief in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. The trigger for the transfer was a report alleging that M was to have drugs brought in on a particular day through another inmate’s visitor. That visitor was found on that particular visit to have been in possession of drugs. M was served with a Notice of Involuntary Transfer Notification and given a nine page Progress Summary Report. That Report set out the “gist” of information collected in three Security Intelligence Reports. The allegations of his drug involvement emanated from twenty different inmates who were described as “reliable sources.” M responded to the Progress Report with a seven-page letter in which he challenged the reliability of the information it contained. M pointed out that many searches of his cell and of his wife, her car and purse turned up “nothing.” M also questioned the veracity of specific allegations made against him. For instance, one particular allegation stated that he was receiving drugs from his brother. M stipulated that he had no brother. In response to the triggering incident, M submitted to the warden a sworn statement from the inmate whose visitor was found to possess drugs. That inmate stated M had had no involvement whatsoever with the drugs found on his visitor. Despite the fact that M challenged the substantive elements of the decision in his reply to the CSC, the Court set out and dealt with two procedural issues only. The first was whether M was given insufficient details of the reasons for his transfer so that he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to respond. The second issue was whether or not M was given adequate reasons for the refusal of prison authorities to change their decision. |
| In dismissing the application, Catliff J. reviewed past case authority and examined the facts in M’s case. The Court asserted that the decision to transfer is an administrative decision taken by the authorities in the interests of safety and thus, is not one to be overturned lightly. Catliff J. found that, considering all the circumstances, M was treated with procedural fairness, being provided with sufficient information to defend him-self against possible arbitrariness. The reasons given in the Notice of Transfer amounted to sufficient notification. |
TOP
|