Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation

[2005] HCATrans 858

[2005] HCATrans 858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A23 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MARKHAM WAYNE MOORE‑McQUILLAN

Applicant

and

WORKCOVER CORPORATION

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2005, AT 11.00 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The Magistrates Court of South Australia found the applicant guilty of one count under s 120(1)(b) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) (“the Act”) of dishonestly claiming to be entitled to a payment or other benefit pursuant to the provisions of the Act and one count under s 120(1)(c) of the Act of dishonestly making a statement on the day alleged about a claim pursuant to the provisions of the Act knowing the statement to be false. The Magistrates Court accepted the evidence of a private investigator, which tended to disprove the applicant’s continued incapacity for work, and overruled the applicant’s objections to the admission of the evidence on the grounds that the complainant had given an undertaking to the Workers Compensation Tribunal not to undertake surveillance of the applicant. The Magistrates Court recorded a conviction, sentenced the applicant to 56 Community Service hours within nine months, imposed on each count a Victim of Crime levy of $70 and ordered the applicant to pay the complainant’s legal costs of prosecution.

Justice Anderson of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the appeal on the grounds that, as the case did not involve the acts of law enforcement officers, the Magistrates Court was not in error in not taking into account the case of R v Ridgeway (1998) 72 SASR 73 and not considering the Criminal Law (Undercover Operations) Act 1995 (SA). The applicant had not been prejudiced during the trial by virtue of medical conditions from which he suffered. The Supreme Court also held that the Magistrates Court had not erred in the exercise of its discretion to sentence the applicant.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court.  The Full Court rejected as baseless the applicant’s submission that Justice Anderson displayed prejudice and bias and held that there was no evidence to support an allegation of bias.  The Court also held that the Supreme Court did not err in making the order as to costs.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that the Full Court erred in finding that the applicant was not prejudiced in the hearing before Justice Anderson and that the decision of the Supreme Court contained errors of law.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court.  An appeal would have no prospects of success.  Furthermore, the Application raises no issue of law or principle that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 11.00 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED