What is the test for a transfer of dangerous inmates from a medium security institution to a high security institution?

There is no doubt that decisions taken which have an impact on the conditions under which and the institutions in which offenders such as the applicant must serve their sentences must be procedurally fair, free from the taint of arbitrariness and observant of the rules of natural justice. At the same time, it must be recognized that the administration of institutions housing inmates who have committed serious offences and who are serving lengthy sentences requires those in authority to be able to act decisively when issues involving the safety of those under their charge or in their employ are raised by plausible sources of information. In Bachynski v. William Head Institution, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1715 (S.C.) Mr. Justice Bouck held as follows at para. 36: Prison authorities must act on the best information available. Sometimes it is unreliable and an individual inmate is wrongly charged or wrongly transferred. But given the nature of the inmate population and the necessity of preserving order there is often no other alternative. If a dangerous person is allowed to remain in the general prison population of a medium security institution, it is the other prisoners and staff who suffer the consequences because they have no place else to go.

Romilly J., writing at para 30. in Athwal v. Ferndale Institution, 2006 BCSC 1386 [Athwal], commented that prison authorities authorized to make decisions acquire a certain expertise in the complex balancing act they engage in when making their decisions. He found this called for greater judicial deference: