Goldsborough v Bentley

The matter of Goldsborough v Bentley was before the Queensland Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from an inquest conducted by the Northern Coroner into the death of a worker in a workplace incident. The Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland (OFSWQ) had previously investigated the incident and decided not to prosecute the employer. The coroner, during the inquest, directed an employee of OFSWQ to answer questions regarding the decision not to prosecute, which led to the employer seeking judicial review of the coroner's actions. The central legal issues revolved around the coroner's authority to investigate the reasoning behind the decision not to prosecute and to comment upon that decision, as well as whether the coroner exceeded her powers under the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) by directing the employee to answer questions about the decision.

The court found that the coroner did not exceed her powers by directing the employee to answer questions related to the decision not to prosecute. The coroner's role in an inquest includes the power to investigate the circumstances of a death, which includes examining decisions made by other authorities in relation to the incident. The court held that the coroner's actions were within the scope of her statutory powers and did not constitute an overreach into the prosecutorial domain of OFSWQ. The court also noted that the coroner's comments on the decision not to prosecute were permissible as they were part of the broader inquiry into the circumstances of the death and did not constitute an impermissible review of the decision-making process of OFSWQ.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the coroner's actions were appropriate and did not constitute an abuse of process. The coroner's investigation into the reasoning behind the decision not to prosecute was seen as a legitimate part of her duty to determine the cause of death and any relevant contributing factors. Furthermore, the coroner's comments on the decision were held to be within the scope of permissible observations during an inquest. As a result, the application by the employer for judicial review was dismissed, and the orders made by the lower court were upheld.