Reynolds v Criscon Pty Ltd

[2019] QDC 252

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reynolds v Criscon Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 252

PARTIES:

STEVEN JOHN REYNOLDS
(applicant)

v

CRISCON PTY LTD (ACN 107 701 655)
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3488/18

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2019

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.  Appeal allowed.

2.  Substitute a fine of $625,000 for the fine of $405,000 imposed in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane on 4 September 2018.

3.  Otherwise affirm sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane on 4 September 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to two offences of breaching s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) – where the appellant appeals pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) on the ground that the penalty imposed was inadequate both as to the fine and the non-recording of convictions – whether the sentence imposed was inadequate.

COUNSEL:

MJ Copley QC for the appellant
No representation for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Work Health Safety Prosecutor for the appellant
No representation for the respondent

1. The respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court, Brisbane on 4 September 2018 to two offences of breaching s. 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). It was ordered to pay a fine of $405,000 as well as professional costs of $3,179.20. No convictions were recorded.

1. The appellant now appeals pursuant to s. 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) against the sentence imposed on the ground that the penalty imposed was inadequate both as to the amount of the fine and the non recording of convictions.

1. It should be noted that on the morning that this appeal was heard the court was advised that the respondent had resolved on 26 August 2019 by way of a Special Resolution[1], that it be wound up and that a liquidator be appointed. That liquidator advised the court that the respondent would not be represented at the appeal hearing and that the respondent, for that reason, neither consents to nor opposes the orders sought by the appellant.

   [1]Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) ss 491; 499; 249A and 1072A(2)(b).

1. The respondent had however, through its previous legal representation, filed an outline of submissions.  Council for the appellant agreed that it would be appropriate for the court to take those submissions into account when deciding the appeal. 

Nature of appeal

1. An appeal under s. 222 is by way of rehearing on the evidence given in the proceeding before the Magistrates Court[2] unless the District Court gives leave to adduce new evidence.[3]  The appellant does not seek leave to adduce new evidence. 

   [2]Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s. 223(1).

   [3]Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s. 223(2).

1. As the imposition of proper sentence orders involves the exercise of judicial discretion, an appellant must demonstrate error…