Williamson v Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd

Williamson sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court that overturned its conviction in the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court had convicted the respondent, Betterlay Brick and Block Laying Pty Ltd, of an offence under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). The court found that the respondent had a health and safety duty under the Act and failed to do all that was reasonably practicable to ensure that steel reinforcement was placed into a wall at a construction site, which placed persons at risk of harm. The District Court overturned the conviction, finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the breach was found to have occurred on 28 November 2014, not 2 December 2014 as alleged in the complaint.

The court was required to decide whether leave to appeal should be granted, and whether the grounds of appeal concerned issues of general importance in relation to the conduct of similar prosecutions under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). The court had to consider the statutory provisions and principles involved, including the primary object of statutory construction and the meaning of the term "reasonably practicable." The court also had to determine whether the breach was a continuing offence and whether a single date was required to be pleaded and proven as an essential element of the offence under s 33 of the WHS Act.

The court found that the primary judge erred in her interpretation and application of s 33 of the WHS Act in failing to find that the offence was a continuing offence. The court held that the risk arose at the time that the wall was core filled and the risk was there even if it was only a potential risk. The court also found that the breach was not limited to the date alleged in the complaint and that a single date was not required to be pleaded and proven as an essential element of the offence under s 33. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders made in the Beenleigh District Court on 24 August 2018. The court reinstated the orders of the magistrate made on 12 October 2017, being that the respondent was convicted and fined $35,000 and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to the District Court and this appeal.