|
The applicant S was involuntarily transferred from William Head Institution to Mission Institution. Both institutions have a security classification of medium, and as a consequence, a previous petition for relief in the nature of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of British Columbia was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there had not been a deprivation of the applicant’s residual liberty. S thus sought judicial review in the Federal Court of the Deputy Commissioner’s decision to transfer him. The primary reason for the transfer was the belief on the part of prison officials that S was planning to escape from William Head – a penitentiary that is surrounded by water on three sides and therefore somewhat less secure than other medium security institutions. This allegation was based upon information received from the RCMP. The information had been provided to the RCMP by an informant whom the RCMP considered reliable despite the fact that the informant was known to have earlier recanted allegations made against another inmate. The Court dealt with two central issues. First, was S provided with a reasonable and genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations? Second, if the requirements for procedural fairness have been met, was the decision nevertheless patently unreasonable?
|
|
Wetston J. declared that the requirements of procedural fairness are applicable in a transfer that is involuntary regardless of whether the transfer is to a higher security institution or not. In this case, insufficient information was provided to S. In assessing whether the decision was patently unreasonable, the Court must consider the nature of the allegations made against the applicant, and the nature and quality of the evidence supporting those allegations. In this case, the warden had determined the information regarding the escape plot reliable. However, the warden provided absolutely no explanation as to why this information was considered reliable, except for the fact that the RCMP also determined that it was so. Other than the statement as to reliability, there was no evidence before the Court that demonstrated that the reliability had been in any way determined by an independent investigation or by any corroborating information from any independent sources. Given the fact that the informant had recanted allegations made against another, and in light of the fact that certain details provided by the informant respecting the alleged escape plans of S could not have been carried out, Wetston J. claimed that it would not have been unreasonable to expect that some further independent investigation of the facts would have been undertaken to validate the informant’s story. The warden provided no explanation as to why such an informant would continue to be considered reliable. Wetston J. held the decision to transfer S as patently unreasonable, set it aside and referred the matter back for re-consideration in accordance with the reasons for judgment.
|
TOP