Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2023] QCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QCA 95

PARTIES:

MALONEY, Tamara Elizabeth
(applicant)
v
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 234 of 2022
DC No 16 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – [2022] QDC 216 (Morzone KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 14 April 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 May 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Bond and Dalton JJA

ORDER:

Date of Order: 14 April 2023

1. Application for leave to appeal refused.

Date of Order: 9 May 2023

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted in the Magistrates Court of six breaches of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the magistrate said in the course of sentencing that he regarded the applicant’s conduct as a “careless aberration” due to her mental health issues rather than “calculated and brazen”– where the applicant appealed to the District Court arguing that the learned magistrate erred in not rejecting the appellant’s pleas of guilty – where there was no evidence before the magistrate which showed that the applicant could not have been convicted of the offences – where there had been an unsuccessful appeal to the District Court – whether the applicant’s plea of guilty ought to have been set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – COSTS – where the applicant is impecunious and mentally ill – whether costs should follow the event

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 136, s 533, s 534, s 535

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254, considered
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25, considered
R v DBY[2022] QCA 20, considered
R v Dobie [2011] 1 Qd R 367; [2009] QCA 394, considered
Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia[2012] QCA 152, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Jackson for the applicant
A L Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Solicitors for the applicant
Workers Compensation Regulator Prosecutions Unit for the respondent

MULLINS P: For the reasons given by Dalton JA, I joined in the order made by the Court on 14 April 2023 refusing the application for leave to appeal.
I agree with Bond JA’s reasons in relation to the appropriate costs order and that the applicant must pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
BOND JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Dalton JA.
I agree with the reasons which her Honour expresses for joining in the order which dismissed the application for leave to appeal. I respectfully take a different…

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 Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QCA 95
Case: [2023] QCA 95
Decision Date: 9 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Maloney, was convicted in the Magistrates Court of six breaches of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) after pleading guilty. In sentencing, the magistrate described Maloney's conduct as a "careless aberration" due to her mental health issues. Maloney subsequently appealed to the District Court, arguing that the magistrate erred in not rejecting her pleas of guilty, as there was no evidence indicating that she could not have been convicted of the offences. The appeal was unsuccessful.

The legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate's failure to reject Maloney's pleas of guilty constituted an error warranting a new trial. The court needed to determine whether the plea of guilty should have been set aside given Maloney's impecuniosity and mental health issues. Additionally, the court considered the question of costs, particularly in light of Maloney's financial and mental health status.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the magistrate did not err in accepting Maloney's pleas of guilty. The court found no grounds for setting aside the pleas, as there was no evidence to suggest that Maloney could not have been convicted of the offences. The court further determined that costs should follow the event, ordering Maloney to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

In light of the above, the court refused Maloney's application for leave to appeal and ordered her to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The date of the order was 9 May 2023.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal refused.

Date of Order: 9 May 2023

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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.

CITATION:	Maloney v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QCA 95
PARTIES:	MALONEY, Tamara Elizabeth (applicant) v WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 234 of 2022 DC No 16 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – [2022] QDC 216 (Morzone KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 14 April 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 9 May 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Bond and Dalton JJA
ORDER:	Date of Order: 14 April 2023 1. Application for leave to appeal refused. Date of Order: 9 May 2023 2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF TRIAL JUDGE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted in the Magistrates Court of six breaches of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the magistrate said in the course of sentencing that he regarded the applicant’s conduct as a “careless aberration” due to her mental health issues rather than “calculated and brazen”– where the applicant appealed to the District Court arguing that the learned magistrate erred in not rejecting the appellant’s pleas of guilty – where there was no evidence before the magistrate which showed that the applicant could not have been convicted of the offences – where there had been an unsuccessful appeal to the District Court – whether the applicant’s plea of guilty ought to have been set aside CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – COSTS – where the applicant is impecunious and mentally ill – whether costs should follow the event Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 136, s 533, s 534, s 535 Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254, considered Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25, considered R v DBY[2022] QCA 20, considered R v Dobie [2011] 1 Qd R 367; [2009] QCA 394, considered Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia[2012] QCA 152, considered
COUNSEL:	M J Jackson for the applicant A L Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Solicitors for the applicant Workers Compensation Regulator Prosecutions Unit for the respondent