Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services

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

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.

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.

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.

Section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 is in the following terms:

UCPR 28.2 is in these terms:

It is neither possible nor appropriate to express a view upon either the utility or outcome of the Commissioner’s motion. It is, however, convenient to make the directions and orders sought with a view to assessing the issues as soon as possible.

Accordingly, subject to what I have noted above, I make the following orders by consent: