O'Neill v WorkCover Corporation (No 2) No. Scciv-00-803

[2001] SASC 301

O’NEILL v WORKCOVER CORPORATION (NO 2)
[2001] SASC 301

Application for Leave to Appeal

1. GRAY J                This is an application for leave to appeal.

2. On 29 June 2001 I dismissed an appeal against convictions and sentence.[1]  Mr O’Neill had been convicted of numerous offences against the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). On appeal, his counsel asserted that the magistrate had made a number of errors.

   [1] O’Neill v WorkCover Corporation [2001] SASC 218

3. The magistrate’s factual findings were not specifically attacked.  The alleged errors were not identified.  Counsel made bare assertions and submitted that the magistrate should have preferred the evidence of Mr O’Neill to that of the prosecution witnesses.  I found that the magistrate’s findings were appropriate and supported by the available evidence.

4. Other grounds of appeal involved challenges to the classification of the offences, the adequacy of the magistrate’s reasons, the need for an estoppel and a permanent stay due to an abuse of process and a challenge to the reparation order made by the magistrate.  I found that those grounds had no substance.

5. Mr O’Neill now seeks leave to appeal to the Full Court.  The proposed grounds of appeal are that the “learned judge erred” in finding that:

   -the offences were not indictable

   -the magistrate’s reasons were adequate

   -“the prosecution evidence was sufficient for the prosecution to prove” that Mr O’Neill did not have any entitlement to WorkCover payments

   -the WorkCover Corporation had “suffered a loss resulting from the commission of the offences within the meaning of section 120(3) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.”

   There has been no condescension to particularity.

6. A further appeal may not be brought unless leave to appeal is obtained from the judge or from the Full Court.[2]  Mr O’Neill has elected to seek leave pursuant to Rule 94.01(1)(b)(i) of the Supreme Court Rules.

   [2] Paragraph 3(a) of the proviso to s 50(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA)

7. In Stokolosa & Anor v Weeks Peacock Quality Homes Pty Ltd[3] it was said:

   “The court’s practice has been to grant leave to appeal only if a question of general principle arises, and usually the court considers also whether there is reason to doubt the correctness of the decision under consideration.  However, in the end the court must act as the interests of justice may require.”

   [3] [2000] SASC 334

8. I do not consider that Mr O’Neill has made out a case for leave in accordance with these principles.  No question of general principle has arisen.  No grounds were advanced to raise doubt as to the correctness of the decision.  The interests of justice do not call for a grant of leave.  I refuse leave to appeal.

9. The order of the court is that the application for leave to appeal is refused.