Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd v Bell

Case [2020] QDC 181

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd v Bell [2020] QDC 181

PARTIES:

QUICKCELL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS PTY LTD

(appellant)

v

GRAHAM CHARLES BELL

(respondent)
FILE NO/S:

BD816/18, BD1809/18

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich District Court

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2018

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The appeals are allowed.

2.   The guilty verdict entered in the Magistrates Court is set aside.

3.   The complaint is dismissed.

4.   The fine imposed by the Magistrates Court is set aside.

5.   The costs order made in the Magistrates Court is set aside.

6.   The parties are directed to file written submissions on costs of both the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and on appeal, limited to five pages (inclusive), within 28 days.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – appeal against conviction – appeal against sentence – where appellant convicted of an offence against s 32 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – where central to conviction was expert evidence that panels manufactured by the appellant were “too thin” – whether on a review of the evidence and the magistrate’s reasons the prosecution had proved a breach by the appellant of its duty under s 23(2) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 – where on the whole of the evidence the court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had failed to comply with its duty – where appeal allowed and complaint dismissed

Cases:

 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172, followed
CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172, followed
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194, followed
Coleman v Kinbacher & Anor (Qld Police) [2003] QCA 575, cited
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, cited
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549, cited
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 18, followed
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590, cited
Lee v Lee [2019] 372 ALR 383, followed
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, cited
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] 331 ALR 550, followed
The Glannibanta (1867) 1 PD 283, cited

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, followed

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1977 ss 3, 93

Justices Act 1886

Work Health and Safety Act2011 ss 23, 32, 171
COUNSEL:

Mr R Devlin QC with Mr M Labone for the appellant

Mr M J Copley QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:

Moray & Agnew for the appellant

Office of Industrial Relations for the respondent

Introduction

  1. On 26 December 2012 a precast concrete panel manufactured by the appellant, Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd, which was being used in the construction of the Trackstar Program Alliance – Richlands…

Continue reading Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd v Bell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd v Bell [2020] QDC 181
Case
[2020] QDC 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quickcell Technology Products Pty Ltd, an Australian corporation, was prosecuted for offences under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The matter was initially heard in the Magistrates Court of Queensland, where the corporation was convicted and fined. The corporation appealed both the conviction and the sentence, which was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The crux of the appeal centred around the expert evidence that suggested the panels manufactured by Quickcell were "too thin", which was pivotal in the conviction under section 32 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven that Quickcell breached its duty under section 23(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented, particularly the expert testimony, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Quickcell failed to comply with its statutory duty. The court was also required to assess whether the magistrate’s reasoning in accepting the evidence was sound and whether the conviction was justified.

The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the required standard of proof, particularly regarding the adequacy of the panels' thickness. The court also noted that there were significant inconsistencies in the expert evidence and other testimonies, which undermined the reliability of the prosecution's case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The orders included dismissing the complaint, setting aside the fine and costs order from the Magistrates Court, and directing the parties to submit written costs submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeals are allowed.

2. The guilty verdict entered in the Magistrates Court is set aside.

3. The complaint is dismissed.

4. The fine imposed by the Magistrates Court is set aside.

5. The costs order made in the Magistrates Court is set aside.

6. The parties are directed to file written submissions on costs of both the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and on appeal, limited to five pages (inclusive), within 28 days.

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.