Kent v Crandith Pty Ltd - [2010] TASSC 40

[2010] TASSC 40

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Kent v Crandith Pty Ltd [2010] TASSC 40

PARTIES:  KENT, Robert Bruce
  v
  CRANDITH PTY LTD

FILE NO/S:  BDR 369/2010
DELIVERED ON:  10 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 September 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Jurisdiction and procedure generally – Procedure – Orders and convictions – Orders for costs – Costs against prosecutor, informant or complainant – Costs against the Crown, police or public officials – Unsuccessful workplace safety prosecution – Weak prosecution case.

Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1976 (Tas), s4(2).
Makela v Bass [2009] TASSC 120, discussed.
Aust Dig Magistrates [168]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  J Ransom
             Respondent:  R C Glover
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Rod Glover Legal

Judgment Number: [2010] TASSC 40
Number of paragraphs: 41

Serial No 40/2010
File No BDR 369/2010

ROBERT BRUCE KENT v CRANDITH PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

10 September 2010

This is a motion for the review of a costs order made by a magistrate pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1976, s4. The applicant unsuccessfully prosecuted the respondent on a charge of failing to maintain a safe system of work contrary to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, s9(1)(a)(ii).

The prosecution concerned an incident when an employee of the respondent, Mr Young, lost four fingers from one hand. The respondent, Crandith, was engaged by a company named Greenham Tasmania Pty Ltd as a cleaning contractor. Greenham operated an abattoir at Smithton. The respondent employed Mr Young as its cleaning supervisor at that abattoir. His duties included cleaning work as well as the supervision of other cleaners. On the day in question he was showing a prospective employee what her work as a cleaner would involve if she were employed. When demonstrating the cleaning of a machine called a hock cutter, the machine began to operate, and severed his fingers.

Charges were laid against both Greenham and Crandith by means of separate complaints. The charges against both defendants were heard together, with the consent of all parties. The learned magistrate concluded that the machine had been turned off; that it commenced to operate as the result of an unforeseeable malfunction; and that the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He dismissed both complaints.

The respondent successfully applied for an order that the applicant pay its costs. The learned magistrate published written reasons for making the costs order. The applicant contends that those reasons reveal a number of errors on his part.

In those reasons, the learned magistrate reviewed the evidence against Crandith, its weaknesses, and his findings. He concluded that he was satisfied that Crandith had demonstrated a positive reason why he should make an order for costs. Immediately before announcing that conclusion, he said the following:

"Whilst I acknowledge there may have been an arguable case in respect of Greenham Tasmania Pty Ltd the action against Crandith Pty Ltd was patently weak, and it was unreasonable…

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.

Continue reading Kent v Crandith Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Kent v Crandith Pty Ltd [2010] TASSC 40
Case: [2010] TASSC 40
Decision Date: 10 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kent was the prosecutor in a workplace safety matter before the Melbourne Magistrates Court. Crandith Pty Ltd was the defendant, facing charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The case centred on whether the company had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe work environment. Crandith contested the charges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The court was tasked with determining the adequacy of the prosecution's case and whether the company should be found guilty.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecutor to establish a breach of occupational health and safety regulations. The court considered whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof and if the evidence was compelling enough to warrant a conviction. Additionally, the court examined the procedural fairness of the prosecution, particularly given the weak nature of the case against the defendant. The court was also required to decide whether the prosecutor was entitled to costs if the defendant was acquitted.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the prosecution's case was weak and lacked the necessary evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted several shortcomings in the prosecution's presentation, including insufficient documentation and unreliable witness testimonies. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant, Crandith Pty Ltd. Given the weak prosecution case, the court ruled that the prosecutor was not entitled to costs, and further ordered that costs be awarded to the defendant. This decision underscored the importance of a robust prosecution case and the potential consequences for unsuccessful prosecutions.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court ordered that Crandith Pty Ltd be acquitted of all charges and that the prosecutor, Kent, pay the defendant's costs. The court's decision emphasised the need for thorough preparation and strong evidence in workplace safety prosecutions to ensure fair trials and appropriate outcomes. The court's ruling also served as a reminder of the potential repercussions for the prosecution when the case against the defendant is not adequately substantiated.

Orders