Seiffert v Commissioner of Police

The applicants in this case were union officials who held permits under the Fair Work Act and Work Health and Safety (WHS) entry permits under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). They were denied entry to a worksite by the employer during an investigation into a suspected contravention of the WHS Act. The industrial inspectors could not direct entry under the WHS Act, so the applicants refused to leave the site, citing their authority under sections 117 and 118 of the WHS Act. They were charged with trespass under the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld). The Magistrates Court found the applicants had no case to answer and dismissed the charges, but the respondent appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Magistrates Court. The applicants now appeal to the Court of Appeal against the District Court's decision.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the applicants' conduct in remaining at the workplace was authorised under sections 117 and 118 of the WHS Act, and therefore lawful, and whether section 11(3) of the Summary Offences Act excluded the applicants from liability under section 11(2) of that Act. The Court of Appeal considered the proper construction of the relevant statutory provisions and whether the applicants' conduct was authorised by the WHS Act. The Court also considered the exercise of discretion by the Magistrates Court in determining the amount of costs payable by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants' conduct was authorised under sections 117 and 118 of the WHS Act, and therefore lawful. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to remain at the worksite to conduct their inquiries. The Court also found that section 11(3) of the Summary Offences Act excluded the applicants from liability under section 11(2) of that Act. The Court held that the applicants' conduct was authorised by the WHS Act, and therefore they could not be guilty of trespass. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicants' appeals, set aside the orders made in the District Court, and ordered that the respondent pay the applicants' costs of the appeal to the District Court and the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal to the Court of Appeal.