Ayres v WorkCover Queensland [1998] ICQ 29 (1998) 158 QGIG 528

528 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZE1TE 28 August, 1998 ###i#l################/#1################################### QUEE'.NSLAND IND\JSTR!AL COCRT WORKCOVER QUEENSLA!~D /\CT 1996 l"ilork.place Relations ;L-:-t 1997 s. 360(3) ~· appe-d frD.rr,i decision of indu.strial magistrate Peler Ayres AND (Ne. C28 ,.-,f 1998) HJS11CE WlLUAMS. PRESJDENT REPORT ON H 1DG.\{Et,1 (as edited) In gJving his Judgn1c,11t frzirfl th.f: :Bench on 7 l1ttgust 1998, the President said> '"The appe-Hant \V<l$ chargc.d ,-1.,•ith defrauding the '\Vutke.rs' Cornpensatio:n Board, an offence pursuant ro s. 194 c,t 1.he ivorkers' Co~rapensation i-ict 1990" Jie wa1: ce.)_r:.vicred and JPPCa!S against the conviction, ptiman:ly on the grv-unti that the pn.')l;;eedings ,vere not corr1mence.d in tirne purf.:uant to f. 196(4) of ·:hat Act "Ili.e-re is an altern;:Jliv:::: arg1.m1ent which ha.-; l::K:en addresse-d to nM ha,sed on the ptopos1tion that, in the cffcun:1st.an-:-es. the 1:trosecution of this cornpla!nt wa" an ahu:,.c of process, Section i96(4). is in these tenns~ 'Proceedings in re~:,p:A::t. of an nifcn{_;e agaii1.st triis A.ct 1nay be con1mence-d \Vithin one year foHowit"Hr the corrunissio.n of the offenee or wJtl1in six n-.tonths after the com.rnis;ion nf the offi~nce conies tc, the knowledge of the general manager, whichever period i3 the longer.'. 'J11at uuis! be read with ~. 200(2)(c) which pro~.1ide.sf in effect that a certificate- that th;; comrn:issinn of an off~nce aga.init the A.er carne. to iht- _knoviicdge of the ge-!k"Ta1 n:tanagt..;r on ;t date s-pccified Jn the. ccrtlfica.U:: i; t_:vidence and, in the absence of evidence to 1he- contrary, i..'\Jnciu<:.i ve- '-~vidt:j1ce of the rn1:tk~rs containt:.d in the certificate. By thi:; ti:nx:: the complaint \\·as lodgt:d and tht:: n1atl0.r canli."· on for hearing; thr.: lVorkC'cver Qu.eerwiand Act 1996 had con1c into force. Pur~:uant to s- :558(2) o1 th3) Ai;,_-tj a reJere.tH.k in the 1990 Act to tht: ge1te-ral n1anager is to be taken J.s a reference y.-, \Vor.kC\Jver' s chief executive sJf:ficeJ. I! was in i:.:onsequence, the chief executive officer of VlorkCov.."":-r who prou1ded th?: ccrtifica!e in dfr:; c-1.Se putsU<tllt to ~- 100(2). The dtclln~...tanc>:~s in ,vhich f)t~ OL">t:rat.icn and i;',ffect cf s, J96(4) and s. 200(2) arc to be applied are as fuJJtY,.YS>-· Bet\ve.en ApriJ and ~ioven1ber 1995 the ;;pi__:,eHan! was in receipt of Workers' Com))">nsation. In the peritxt .~1arch to !¥fay 1996 a loss tnvs:stigation officer v,103 a._"{sign.e-d the iask of in\-estigating whetlJer tht' ~ippelhmt h.,Jd cnrnrnitted an offr,no~ aga.in:;;t the Ad by worYing fGr rernun1:.~.ration nn. occasions bet;veen Augu.st and ()ctober 1995 wh1is1 i1: re.ccipt of ~Vs"fkers' Con1p,-0ruation. On 28 J\1ay 1996; that irvestigatin._g officer conducted a rt:c(-.rd of interview vvith the appt:HanL 'Ibe appellant m.a.ck~ certJin adnJission.s but d1e investigating officer was uncertain a~ to whether or n(>t sufficient e.vjdencc had b.:-en C(r1k'Ct.":d tc bring a prosecution against the appel!a:nL Tha:t investigation indicated that ihe last occasion on which the .qipd!ant may hav~ co1nmitted an act ll1 brea.ch ({ hl,-,; obhgations was 2J ()ctobe.r 1995. '"' Because of fh:s unceitain state ()f rrnnrl a-.; to the sufficienc.v of mi:, evidence- and fnr other n_c.;as0ns, the investigating officer f,o.;-;k ·no steps with resrw~t to the investigation fili:; until afttX Easter 1997 whBn th.:tt fiJe was subn1itted to the rnanager of h.is uriit Ther~a!tcr, counsel's opin]on \Vas ptDvid•;!.d and th~- acting chief executive wa,;; appraised of the con1.rillssion tJf the offence. Th,e a(.ting chief executive cofftpleted a certificatf; pursuant :.o s, 2(}0 I{ u1e Act to L\e e-:ffeet. that th,= con1rnissk,n of the offence catlk', to Pi,:- knowledge on 6 Jurn: 1997. That \Vas the ifa.y o.u vv!-sich the CG.rnplainr '-Vas svlom .... The princi_pa1 argurn;.:;nt .for the appdlant is that J. i 96(4) cannot be H~firring i.o actual k.uowledge_, it nmst be referring to 1.xmstmctive 0r imputed b1c,.wledge. In the course. of the; a.rgu.n1ent c•,)UP.•se.l V/3-3 prt'J.-1Me<l to go so far a~: to ,say that so long as any ,:rnnlov.:.;:. of th,~ Ik:a•d or \Vc~kCove-r ha.d .K.nowk<lge of the c;_rnrois;i c_i.11 ,~if ti:;.e offen,;:e. th~;; that was to be irnputed to the gc.ne.;:a! n1a11.Jger. I ::~armot accept that argn.n~tnt. The Jegislaturc has v,-:ry specificallv provided in s. 196(4) aud 200(2_) for the P':,quisit.-: k.now]edgc to be th:{t of the gener.:d rna:nager. f)f course, the. genera] mdl;.af e.: ,x cPdef e.x,;cutive offiei.'-f; cou!d delegate that pa.tt1cu1;i.r ;:x;-v;,,er pEr~uant to ~. 3 .i ot ttie 1990 Ac"t.. Toe fact that the-re can be delegation in the re.levant arna is est;;blished by s. l 96(2) and s. 20/l(l ). Th_; fact that thc're is no specific reference in ss. (4J m the <l0kgate does uot, in n1y view, n1ean that there t~ould not be .an appropriate deke:ation. The dear wording of the 8i.atme requires iht: knowle~ige t<-.i }:e. the knowledge of the generai rnanag,:;r or ,m oftlcu who is dulv ar>Dointe<l a delegate of the generaJ manager, The- ~eni.fi-c-dte 111 this t;ts~ is 1 in the clrcurn-...iance.s, condu.sive. Sorne reie1·ence in th~ <~ourse of argun1e:H w~\S made to th~- decision in Smith " B,1idwin PX parte Smith p 97fJi Qd. R 380. H1ere. s:. J3G of ~he Auctioneers and Agen1.t Act .!}71 \Va.~ f'.o:n.3.idi..~red hv t½e [\,H Cour:. That ~ectirn.11 ,'->O fa.r as is relevant, provi.:k~i th_::~i.: fff<~cdi.n.:-.::s for the ofl~nce ,vere to b-t ]nshtut.e£1 ,vithin s.i:--., _mo.nthE after the rorn~·~is.sion ot the otfe-t!Ct~ catne to the kno,v1e<lg0 of the- •::t)n1p~aina.nt. ibt7 Court ll~-ld that the cornplainant could be said hJ have ;t~qu:ircd. kr1owlc-dge nf rhe co:mrrtlssion of the f>ffe-n.:..:e ouly wht>:o ht., ha.i:i SlKh hxtorrnaticm bi:.fore h1rn as to give hirn reasona.½Je grounds for SLH..h b?.Jidi. That decisinn i:! Ih)t dete:crninafrv·e of the p:e,sent ~peaJ hut :t i, not v,,it.J1out sorne rek.vanci:-, It i'> .;;ignifi.cant that .in the ,,ta.1utory p.ros-·.. J.slun ~:~l:~e;'i:?01 ~~:f:~v~~:;f:~:;.~:-~It ~:~~~:~~::Ef:S~:-: :::;;~he that of the gL0n0ral mauage-r and that in this case is established condu.slvely by thf~ certificate. As an alternative argurnent counsel for the ;.rppdhu1t subnri1ted that in the c.ircumst.ance-s p.r'c.Viecuting tht: (:emph-unt co_,:1stitut:e.ii an a.½Hse of prc,cse...sL _R_efe-rem::e was n1ade h."1 Jago v l)L,trir:t Court of }v"rtw Suuth }Vales (1989) 168 CLR 23 tn1.d the. paJsage in the Judgrnent of the Chief Ju~tice at page 30. Th.c:rto NLtson Chit:f Ju.~tice said: Tn essence th,en th~ power tu pn-:xt~.ut an a.hu_•,t~ of pn:x::.~ss in tl11,:,.: context is derived .frs:.¥n tJ1.-:; p-,.;hhe in1er•::::st. tir,~t ti~~tt trials aad th_e processes prt'cediug thern are condtKkd f:iirly and sec•)ndJy_, that so fa.r as 1x}ss1b.k- person,'- charged ~vith <::rlrrri11al 0{:ferices an: both tried and u.ied tvithnut u.nreasoH:.1ble dttiy. 1n this :,.;ense faix:w::s.~. to the accused i'-; not the sol~> GiJerion wi-h.~n a {~{°l!Jrt dec.irh.:s ucJ1c!hc-r .J cr.it:ninal trial sh,:-,uJd pn.,ceed.' I h~Ye outlined ab,'..}VC- the c_:ircurnstaJ.~ces iu which the co1nplai111 wat h.id ana the dday, part1cnlar]y bc.twe.e.n. ~1Jy 1996 anrl June 1997 Whlh:1 Lh..ere \Va.8 some de.Jay it has bc.:.en explained and I :tn1 not sa.:i';"fii_::d in u~is p.;.uticu!ar case it meant that the prt_1secution of the cor.npia.im -:;va__r.:: unfair to tlk' apr:ieHa..nt The }tt:aring cl ilh: con1piaint y,:as cornp1eted witl-iin approxirna.tdy two yf:-ars of the cornrni!-.,sivn uf !h::: 12-,st e.kr.nr-n\ cf tile offr.nce. rihere had h&~n nothing said or done b}' the Board to indicate. to 1he appe-llant t.hat it was n.::A pro•.:::eedi.n~~ vvith. :a Dharge rmd it c:untnt hr: said that he v,,ras sp:,::c1:·icaHy prt'judice-d by tl.tf'. <lday. 'I am .r.ioi satisfied tJrnt .it ha~ hf'.'.tfl est.aJ)ii.-;ht:d that the prostcurior; of thfa matter con.stituted ;J.n abuse nf proct-.ss, in t.½.0 ,;:~ircurrt"Jts1nces the 6_p-pt:":a! should be disn:ussC"d 1,.-u ordi:.r a.:. to cr)st-;," By Lhe (~our\ iLS J E. EWALD. lndusrrial R.1.:-gistrar, 28 August, 1998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT [NDUSTRIAL GAZE'ITE 529 -- 1 of 1 --