Foley v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Case [2022] QDC 183

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Foley v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2022] QDC 183

PARTIES:

RAELEA ROSE FOLEY

(Appellant)

v

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

D30/21

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2022

JUDGE:

Lynch KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   In respect of each charge, the appeal against conviction is allowed, the conviction and sentence is set aside, and a verdict of not guilty is entered.

2.   The orders for payment of restitution and costs are set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of 29 counts of defrauding a workers’ compensation insurer – where the appellant was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months, and to pay restitution of $5,863.13 and costs of $23,908.75 – where appeal against conviction for defrauding charges – where appeal by way of rehearing on the evidence – where appeal court to conduct real review of the evidence – where appeal court to draw own inferences based on evidence at trial – whether defendant dishonestly obtained benefit or caused detriment

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – where onus on prosecution to exclude rational hypothesis consistent with innocence – whether innocent explanation excluded – where defendant did not give or call evidence – whether relevant to drawing guilty inference – whether circumstances called for explanation by defendant – whether facts peculiarly within knowledge of defendant – whether Weissensteiner v The Queen applies

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – where discretion to order retrial – whether prosecution should be permitted to supplement defective case

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 408C

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223(1), 225

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 533(1), 579

CASES:

Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50

Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129

McLeod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230

Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493

Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234

R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308

R v Dillon; Ex parte Attorney-General [2016] 1 Qd R 56

R v McEwen [2019] QCA 16

RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620

Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

COUNSEL:

SOLICITOR:

S Neaves for the Appellant

R Bensted for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:

Ryan Lawyers for the Appellant

Crown Law for the Respondent

Appeal

[1]On 17 and 18 June 2021, Raelea Rose Foley (the appellant) was tried before the Magistrates Court at Ipswich upon 29 charges of defrauding WorkCover Queensland.

[2]On 14 July 2021, the learned Acting Magistrate found the appellant guilty of all 29 offences. In respect of charge 1, the appellant was sentenced…

Continue reading Foley v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Foley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QDC 183
Case
[2022] QDC 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Foley v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the appellant was convicted on 29 counts of defrauding a workers' compensation insurer. The appellant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months, and was ordered to pay restitution of $5,863.13 and costs of $23,908.75. The appellant appealed against the conviction, seeking a rehearing of the evidence by the appeal court. The appeal court was required to conduct a real review of the evidence and draw its own inferences, considering whether the defendant dishonestly obtained a benefit or caused a detriment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had excluded every rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant, and whether the circumstances called for an explanation by the appellant. The court considered whether the facts were peculiarly within the knowledge of the appellant and whether the circumstances warranted an inference of guilt. The court also examined whether the absence of the defendant's evidence or call to give evidence was relevant to drawing an inference of guilt. The court had to decide whether the prosecution should be permitted to supplement a defective case by calling further evidence.

The appeal court found that the prosecution had not excluded every rational hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant. The court held that the circumstances did not call for an explanation by the appellant, and the facts were not peculiarly within the appellant's knowledge. The court held that the absence of the appellant's evidence or call to give evidence was not relevant to drawing an inference of guilt. The court concluded that the prosecution should not be permitted to supplement a defective case by calling further evidence. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was entered. The orders for payment of restitution and costs were also set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of each charge, the appeal against conviction is allowed, the conviction and sentence is set aside, and a verdict of not guilty is entered.

2. The orders for payment of restitution and costs are set aside.

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.