Bassam Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services

2026/00058693

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – the applicant, Mr Hamzy seeks leave to appeal (and an extension of time to file) in part from several declarations made by Rothman J regarding the validity of various decisions and provisions under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW). The proceedings concern a series of challenges brought by Mr Hamzy, an extreme high risk restricted inmate convicted of several serious indictable offences amounting to a custodial sentence of 40 years and 3 months expiring on 14 June 2042. The matters in dispute included whether certain regulations limiting inmates' ability to communicate with legal practitioners (by telephone or correspondence) were invalid, whether the Official Visitor scheme had been impermissibly restricted, and whether requirements such as criminal record checks for lawyers were constitutionally invalid. Several issues overlap with previous proceedings between the parties: Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW (2022) 107 NSWLR 544. Rothman J made several declarations, although only those not in favour of Mr Hamzy are raised on appeal. First, his Honour held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration that cl 94 of the Regulation (which requires legal practitioners seeking to visit an extreme high risk restricted inmate to undergo a criminal record check) was invalid on the basis of either inconsistency with Chapter III of the Constitution (order (1)(c)(i)) or infringement of the implied freedom of political communication (order 1(c)(ii)). His Honour found no constitutional incompatibility in requiring such checks, noting that the regime did not prevent Mr Hamzy from obtaining legal representation or communicating with lawyers. Secondly, his Honour held that Mr Hamzy was not entitled to a declaration that the decision not to approve the use of tablets by inmates at the High Risk Management Correctional Centre (HRMCC) for personal or legal telephone calls was invalid (order (1)(d)). That finding was made on the basis that the evidence did not show the restriction impeded access to legal advice or the courts, and that security risk supported the decision. On appeal, Mr Hamzy argues that orders (1)(c) and (d) should be set aside. On orders (1)(c)(i) and (ii), Mr Hamzy seeks an order that the requirement in cl 94 of the Regulation be deemed constitutionally invalid. On order 1 (d), Mr Hamzy seeks a declaration that the decision not to allow HRMCC inmates the use of the tablets to call their lawyers is unreasonable, inconsistent, discriminatory, and invalid. 

Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2025] NSWSC 1023