$1,514,000 in Costs for Failed Prosecution RSHQ CEO Stone v Thomas. Qld Taxpayers to pay for another RSHQ stuff up
There may well be occasional media releases trumpeting what an outstanding job RSHQ and the OWHSP have done in getting the latest so called prosecutions, which I have already demonstrated as nearly always a plea deal.
No Management charged, Mining Company agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge(often with no conviction recorded), agrees to pay a fine and costs for RSHQ.
What about when the RSHQ CEO Mark Stone and OWHSP fail abysmally, the charges are dismissed and costs awarded against RSHQ?
There is only one example of RSHQ and OWHSP actually prosecuting charges that I am aware of in a full Court hearing.
RSHQ CEO Stove v Thomas relating to a worker falling through a walkway at the Collinsville Washplant sustaining grievous bodily injuries.
(Ex CIOCM Peter Newman from RSHQ even put a Safety Alert out about the incident https://www.rshq.qld.gov.au/safety-notices/mines/surface-coal-mine-worker-falls-from-height)
Guess what, it failed abysmally.
After 8 days of hearing, RSHQ the Magistrate Crawford in 2022 dismissed the charges and awarded the defendant costs of $335,753.83.
Yet this is only part of the Qld taxpayer money being flushed down the toilet by CEO Stone.
RSHQ CEO Stone is running a series of appeals and more as yet unfinished court cases disputing how much costs RSHQ must pay the defendant.
The RSHQ has quietly set aside $1,514,000 to pay for his failed prosecutions and now CEO Stone is wasting more of the taxpayers money than the original costs order was originally for
No media releaser by RSHQ, or OWHSP, or the Minister.
Almost like it never happened at all.
Magistrate Crawford Decision Cannot be Located in the Court Filing System (see later)
The decision of Magistrate Crawford appears to have been drawn into the information black hole that is RSHQ where nothing can be located.
Unless you very carefully read the RSHQ Annual 2021-2022 Report to the State Parliament, you never would.
On page 7 in the Message from the CEO states how there was one unsuccessful prosecution.
On page 58 in the Financials there is a short note saying that RSHQ CEO has set aside $1,514,000 to settle an unnamed unsuccessful prosecution.
https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/ckan-publications-attachments-prod/resources/33ed65e7-ad74-4d4a-9842-a1031400e099/rshq-annual-report-2021-2022.pdf?ETag=bad070c54bf334e2b10bc0e3c7fe5c8c
–Page 7 of 89
Penalties and prosecutions
In 2021-22, 24 penalty infringement notices were issued for gas work and gas device offences. Two matters were referred to the independent Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor, resulting in one prosecution. I exercised my power to cancel two first class certificates of competency under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999.
Page 58 Annual report financials
Special payments (1) $1,514,000
RSHQ has expensed court ordered costs in relation to prosecutions conducted where the costs have been awarded or are anticipated to be awarded where the prosecution is unsuccessful
Why the secrecy about it all?
Surely the taxpayers of Queensland deserve some openness and transparency
Why hide it all in 4 or so obscure line in an 88 page report?
Why not even mention the name of the failed case?
I have been trying to find the decision of Magistrate Crawford without success through the court system.
The only reason anyone would know Magistrate Crawford even made their decision is the published appeal by CEO Stone about the costs awarded
Stone v Thomas [2022] ICQ 30 – Industrial Court of Queensland Caselaw (queenslandjudgments.com.au)
-
Mark Douglas Stone unsuccessfully prosecuted Calvin Joel Thomas for two offences alleged against the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (CMSH Act).
-
After dismissing the complaints, Industrial Magistrate Crawford awarded costs in favour of Mr Thomas in the sum of $335,753.83. Mr Stone does not contend that he ought not pay Mr Thomas’s costs, but he submits on appeal that the costs ought to have been assessed by reference to a scale prescribed under the Justices Act 1886.[1]
-
In the course of judgment, her Honour said this, in a passage which is relevant to the disposition of the present appeals:
“For a number of reasons, I’m not satisfied that those amounts are fair and reasonable costs of the representation in this case. The trial was conducted over eight days. The complainant is correct that many of those days were short days for various reasons. Notwithstanding that both the prosecution and defence were represented by both senior and junior counsel, in my view, this was not a complex trial. It did not involve particularly challenging legal topics or highly complicated expert evidence. It did not involve voluminous numbers of documents with complex evidentiary cross-referencing. It was not a matter of significant seriousness or public interest importance that would otherwise warrant the engagement of senior counsel. It is uncontroversial that trials determine criminal liability for criminal conduct and for an individual defendant, any risk of imprisonment is certainly a very serious matter.
Although this matter was potentially serious for the defendant individually and the mine also, in my view, it was not so difficult or complex that it demanded the amount of professional work outlined in the defendant’s material.”
Magistrate Crawford Decision Cannot be Located in the Court Filing System
Since the 8th of June I have been trying to locate and get a copy of the decision of Justice Crawford.
So far I have been referred via email extensive email trails
- Firstly by the OWHSP to contact the Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court.
- Industrial Magistrates Court referred me to Brisbane Magistrates Court.
- Brisbane Magistrates Court referred me to Bowen Magistrates Court.
- Bowen Magistrates Court denied all knowledge and referred me back to Brisbane Magistrates Court.
- Brisbane Magistrates Court then referred me to the Southport Courthouse.
- Southport Courthouse referred me back to Brisbane Courthouse.
- Brisbane Courthouse insists Southport Courthouse hold the files and they have said they will liaise directly with Southport and obtain the decision.
It has been just over a week since I was told this below and nothing in reply to my follow up yesterday
I would like to offer our apologies on the delay in providing information to you and understand the frustration you must be feeling.
We have followed up our side with the Southport Magistrates Court and are yet to receive a response also
I have escalated again and requested a Manager to look into and advise.
As soon as I have anything relevant to provide to you, I will advise
