Bergin v Linc Energy Limited

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bergin v Linc Energy Limited [2016] QMC 4

PARTIES:

Paul John Bergin

v

Linc Energy Limited (CAN 076 157 045)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-95447/2014

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Committal Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Chinchilla

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Dalby

HEARING DATE:

22 & 23 October 2015; 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 23, 24, 25 & 27 November 2015

MAGISTRATE:

K Ryan

ORDER:

Defendant is committed for trial to the District Court at Dalby on a date to be notified by the Director of Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – No case submission – whether Prosecution evidence is sufficient to put the Defendant on trial

Environmental Protection Act 1994, s17, s437

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s110A, s104

Gant v Magistrate Kucks [2013] QSC 285

May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654

Short v Davey, ex parte Short [1980] Qd R 412

COUNSEL:

Mr R Devlin, Q.C., with Mr Nicholson and Mr Laidley for the Prosecution

Mr R G Bain, Q.C., with Mr N D Loos and Mr Fielding for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection for the Prosecution

Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the Defendant

1. This committal hearing proceeded on the basis of the tender of statements and exhibits pursuant to section 110A of the Justices Act 1886 and the production of certain witnesses for cross examination, as ordered by this court.

2. The Defendant has submitted that for each of the five charges brought against it, there is no case to answer.

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

1. In Gant v Magistrate Kucks[1],   Martin J iterated the well known maxims with regard to a magistrate’s task in committal proceedings. He stated –

   [12]The task of a magistrate under this section is well settled.  A magistrate must, when considering evidence, determine its reliability, including if necessary findings as to credibility, in order to arrive at a decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case against the defendant.

   [13]In other words, a magistrate has to determine, on the basis of the written evidence and any oral evidence, whether a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty.  If, after completing that task, the magistrate forms the opinion that a verdict of guilty could not be returned in those circumstances, then the magistrate is obliged to discharge the defendant.[2]

   [1] [2013] QSC 285

   [2] At paragraphs [12] – [13]

2. Importantly, it is not for a magistrate to decide the guilt or innocence of the Defendant, but to consider whether on the evidence before the court, a jury properly instructed could lawfully convict.[3] 

   [3] See the High Court discussion in May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 at 658 & 549 as referred to by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Short v Davey, ex parte Short [198] Qd R 412 at 413 & 414.

3. Campbell J went on to read a practice direction given by the Divisional Court in England[4] which he stated “is a sound…