Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Act 1984 (ACT)

The parties involved in this case are the Commonwealth of Australia and a private individual, who is the defendant. The dispute revolves around the Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, which amends the Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984. The case was heard in the Australian Capital Territory. The legal issues that the court had to decide involved the interpretation and application of the amended Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984, specifically regarding the burden of proof and the defence of due diligence in cases of contravention of the Ordinance.

The court considered whether the amendments to the Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984 shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant. The court also had to determine whether the defence of due diligence, as outlined in the amended Ordinance, was applicable in the circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning focused on the language used in the amendments and the intention behind the changes. The court found that the amendments did indeed shift the burden of proof to the defendant to some extent, as the defendant had to adduce evidence that was not rebutted by the prosecution. However, the court also found that the defence of due diligence was available to the defendant if they could prove that they had used all due diligence to prevent the contravention.

The outcome of the case was that the amendments to the Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984 were upheld by the court, and the defendant was found to have the burden of adducing evidence that they had used all due diligence to prevent the contravention. The court did not make any further orders in the case, as the issues raised by the defendant were resolved by the interpretation of the amended Ordinance.