Woolworths Limited v Stacey Maree Spletter

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Limited v Stacey Maree Spletter [2018] QDC 13

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(appellant)
v
STACEY MAREE SPLETTER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

2410 of 2017

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2017

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal is dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to adduce new evidence is refused.

3.   Appellant to pay $1,800 costs to be paid to the Registrar of the District Court at Brisbane within 21 days in order that such sum be paid over to the respondent.

4.   If an alternate order as to costs is sought, the parties are to provide written submissions by 4pm on 27 February 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – s 222 APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the appellant was convicted of a number of offences under the Food Act 2006 (Qld) – where the appellant had prior similar convictions – whether penalty is excessive having regard to mitigating factors and penalties imposed for similar offences

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant made an application to adduce new evidence at the hearing of the appeal – whether special grounds exist to allow the application

Food Act 2006 (Qld) s 39(4)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 223
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9(2), 44 and 49

Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132, cited
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255, applied

COUNSEL:

S Grant for the appellant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gould & Associates for the appellant
Crown Law for the respondent

1. On 14 June 2017, in the Magistrates Court at Roma, Woolworths Ltd pleaded guilty to 16 offences against s 39(4) of the Food Act 2006 (‘the Food Act’). The charges relate to Woolworths displaying for sale at its store in Roma, 27 food items past their use-by date. Woolworths Ltd was fined $40,000 and a conviction was recorded.

1. This is an appeal by Woolworths Ltd against penalty, on the basis that the fine imposed was excessive and disproportionate to any other fine previously imposed on it or its competitors.  Woolworths Ltd also seeks to adduce new evidence.

1. For the reasons set out below, the appeal should be dismissed.  Further, the application to adduce new evidence should be refused. 

Circumstances of the offending

1. Woolworths Ltd trades in Roma, Queensland, as Woolworths Roma (‘the Roma store’) and operates a grocery store selling packaged, fresh and frozen food to the public.

1. On 5 August 2016, as part of a state-wide Use-by-Date Project, Environmental Health Officer (EHO), Stacey Spletter in the company of EHO, Paul Morgan attended the Roma store.  The officers found and seized 27 items from the shelves that were between 1 and 45 days past their use-by date. The offending food items were blue cheese dip (45 days); leg ham (14 days); Hans Kookwurst (20 days); pâté (10 days); pasta salad (5 days) and milk (2 days).  The seized items were on display…