In the Matter of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986: Maurice John Dawes v Ian Lapthorne No. SCGRG 94/420 Judgment No. 4824 Number of Pages 18 Industrial Law

The appeal in this case was from a decision of a Review Committee of the Industrial Court, which confirmed an improvement notice issued by an inspector under the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986. The notice required that certain Correctional Services officers at the Adelaide Remand Centre be issued with handcuffs. The Review Committee confirmed the notice and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the Review Committee had misunderstood the section and applied an incorrect test, and had fundamentally misunderstood its role. The court found that the issue of whether prison officers should carry handcuffs was a matter of policy and not of occupational health and safety, and that the Review Committee had committed an error in law. The court also found that the Review Committee had failed to apply the correct test to the issue before it, and had failed to understand that its task was to form an opinion whether the appellant had breached the provisions of the Act. The court concluded that the failure of the Review Committee to understand and correctly interpret the Act amounted to an error in law.

The court considered two main issues in the appeal. The first issue was whether the Review Committee had properly interpreted and applied the words "reasonably practicable" in s19(1) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the Review Committee had failed to perceive the significance of this issue. The court found that the Review Committee had misunderstood the section and applied an incorrect test. The court found that the issue of whether prison officers should carry handcuffs was a matter of policy and not of occupational health and safety, and that the Review Committee had committed an error in law.

The second issue was whether the Review Committee had fundamentally misunderstood its role. The court found that the Review Committee had misunderstood its role and had failed to apply the correct test to the issue before it. The court found that the Review Committee had failed to understand that its task was to form an opinion whether the appellant had breached the provisions of the Act. The court found that the failure of the Review Committee to understand and correctly interpret the Act amounted to an error in law.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Review Committee, cancelling the improvement notice.