Craber v WorkCover Queensland - [2013] QCA 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Craber v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QCA 304

PARTIES:

CRABER, Scott Thomas
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 187 of 2013
DC No 93 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. The application for an extension of time is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant was convicted of one count of fraud, pursuant to s 533 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), in the Magistrates Court – where the District Court refused an application to extend time to appeal to it – whether an application for an extension of time, to appeal from the District Court, should be granted

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the applicant sought to adduce new evidence in the form of a document – where this document had been created a year after the relevant event – whether application for leave to adduce further evidence should be granted

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 32
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 533

R v Banhelyi[2011] QCA 268, cited
R v Lewis (2006) 163 A Crim R 169; [2006] QCA 121, cited
R v Mizzi [2012] QCA 252, cited
R v Nuttall[2013] QCA 219, cited
R v Smithers[2013] QCA 90, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S Sapsford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: This is an application by Scott Thomas Craber for an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the District Court which, itself, refused an application to extend time to appeal to it from the applicant’s conviction in the Magistrates Court.

On 11 February 2009, the applicant was convicted on one count of fraud pursuant to s 533 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The offence concerned the failure of the applicant to notify WorkCover of his employment and earnings as a bus driver during the period when he was in receipt of compensation. The applicant pleaded not guilty and was represented by a solicitor at the hearing of the prosecution.

Trial before the Magistrate

Before the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Craber v WorkCover Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCA 304
Decision Date: 11 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a matter concerning the applicant's conviction for fraud under section 533 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The conviction was handed down by the Magistrates Court, and the applicant sought to appeal this decision to the District Court. However, the District Court had already denied an application to extend the time for the appeal. The applicant's primary contention was that they should be granted an extension of time to lodge the appeal with the District Court, and additionally, they sought leave to present new evidence, which had been created a year after the event in question.

The court was required to determine two significant legal issues. First, whether the application for an extension of time to appeal to the District Court should be granted. Second, whether the applicant should be permitted to adduce new evidence in the form of a document that had been created a year after the relevant event. These issues involved a careful consideration of procedural rules and statutory provisions governing appeals and the admissibility of new evidence in the context of appeals against criminal convictions.

In addressing these issues, the court held that the application for an extension of time to appeal should not be granted. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of the statutory time limit for filing the appeal. Furthermore, the court ruled that the application for leave to adduce further evidence should also be refused. The court reasoned that the document in question, created a year after the event, did not meet the criteria for admissibility of new evidence in an appeal against a criminal conviction.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both applications. The court's decision was final, and no leave to appeal to a higher court was granted. The orders of the court were that the application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused and the application for an extension of time was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

2. The application for an extension of time is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Craber v WorkCover Queensland [2013] QCA 304
PARTIES:	CRABER, Scott Thomas (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 187 of 2013 DC No 93 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	11 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2013
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to adduce further evidence is refused. 2. The application for an extension of time is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant was convicted of one count of fraud, pursuant to s 533 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), in the Magistrates Court – where the District Court refused an application to extend time to appeal to it – whether an application for an extension of time, to appeal from the District Court, should be granted APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the applicant sought to adduce new evidence in the form of a document – where this document had been created a year after the relevant event – whether application for leave to adduce further evidence should be granted Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 32 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 533 R v Banhelyi[2011] QCA 268, cited R v Lewis (2006) 163 A Crim R 169; [2006] QCA 121, cited R v Mizzi [2012] QCA 252, cited R v Nuttall[2013] QCA 219, cited R v Smithers[2013] QCA 90, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S Sapsford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondent