Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety

The plaintiff was serving a life sentence at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), managed by the defendant. He alleged that his treatment at the AMC contravened the Corrections Management Act 2007 and the Human Rights Act 2004. He complained about several matters, including that he had been exposed to second-hand smoke through the conduct of AMC officers who had facilitated and permitted prisoners smoking in areas where it was not permitted due to the prison's Smoking Policy. He alleged that he suffered asthma and sought damages.

Mansfield J rejected the plaintiff's claim relating to passive smoking, largely because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Smoking Policy was not enforced.

Eastman v. Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety [2011] ACTSC 33 (4 March 2011)

  • Australia
  • Mar 4, 2011
  • Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff David Harold Eastman

Defendant Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety

Legislation Cited

Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT)

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"On the evidence, I do not consider that the plaintiff should be awarded damages for being exposed to the smoke from other prisoners’ smoking, with the tolerance or support of certain officers of the defendant. I assume for the purposes of this step that, in the circumstances, the defendant is vicariously liable for their conduct and that, in all the circumstances, their conduct might render them also personally liable for any loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff. I do not need to make findings specifically on those two assumptions for present purposes. That is because it is not proved that their conduct has caused the plaintiff any loss or damage. He gave no real evidence of suffering from the consequences of passive smoking, other than to say that he is asthmatic. He gave no evidence about the extent of his exposure to passive smoking in the past, or indeed since he has been at the AMC. There was no medical evidence to indicate that he presently suffers from the consequences of passive smoking, or did so even temporarily in late 2009. I decline to find that, even if he was exposed to passive smoking whilst he was in the Management Unit in late 2009 and early 2010, he suffered any detriment as a result. I am not satisfied that he did so."