Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 31

PARTIES:

STEVEN JOHN REYNOLDS
(appellant)

v

ORORA PACKAGING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 2628/2018; Holl-Mag 6803/2017

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Holland Park

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2019

JUDGE:

McGill SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Complainant’s appeal against sentence – whether error by magistrate in sentencing process shown – whether sentence shown to be inadequate – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – fine – determination of fine as percentage of maximum, then discount for mitigating factors – impermissible two-stage sentencing process – error of law – sentence not inadequate – appeal dismissed.

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 s 47.

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 – cited.
Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58 – considered.
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346 – cited.
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 – cited.
Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319 – cited.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (2017) 91 ALJR 1063 – considered.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 – cited.
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 – applied.
Lacey v Attorney-General (2011) 242 CLR 573 – cited.
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 – considered.
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 – cited.
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd (2017) 93 NSWLR 338 – considered.
R v Balfe [1998] QCA 14 – cited.
R v BCX [2015] QCA 188 – cited.
R v Boubaris [2014] QCA 199 – applied.
R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363 – applied.
R v de Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 – applied.
R v Dwyer [2008] QCA 117 – cited.
R v Forrester [2008] QCA 12 – applied.
R v GV [2006] QCA 394 – cited.
R v Henderson, ex parte Attorney-General [2013] QCA 63 – cited.
R v Hopper, Ex-parte Attorney-General [2015] 2 Qd R 56 – cited.
R v Law [1996] 2 Qd R 63 – cited.
R v Lawley [2007] QCA 243 – cited.
R v MacDonald [2014] QCA 9 – cited.
R v NJ [2008] QCA 331 – cited.
R v Peterson [2019] QCA 43 – cited.
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550 – considered.
R v Schenk, Ex-parte Attorney-General [2016] QCA 131 – cited.
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 – cited.
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 – cited.
Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 – cited.
Shambayati v Commissioner of Police [2013] QCA 57 – cited.
Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 20 – considered.
Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 – cited.
White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121 – cited.
Williamson v VH & MG Imports Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 56 –…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] QDC 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Reynolds v Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd, the appellant, Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd, was found guilty of several breaches of occupational health and safety laws by a magistrate. The case arose from incidents involving employees who suffered injuries due to unsafe working conditions maintained by the company. Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd appealed against the sentence imposed by the magistrate, arguing that there was an error in the sentencing process and that the sentence was inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate made an error in law by using an impermissible two-stage sentencing process, and whether the sentence was inadequate. The court had to consider the correct method for determining a fine under criminal law, which involves calculating the fine as a percentage of the maximum penalty and then applying any discounts for mitigating factors. The court also needed to determine if this process was correctly followed and if the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed made an error in the sentencing process by using a two-stage method, which was impermissible. However, the court concluded that this error did not render the sentence inadequate. The court held that the fine imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the error did not affect the overall fairness or appropriateness of the sentence.

No further orders were made, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.