Stevens v Nicholson

[2025] QCA 205

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Whether conviction supported by evidence
5. › Whether prosecution proved exposure element of workplace safety offence beyond reasonable doubt
6. › Whether failure to prove when hazard arose was fatal to prosecution case
7. › Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld), ss 10, 28, 30, 40C
1. Criminal Law
2. › Workplace safety offences
3. › Electrical safety duty
4. › Person conducting a business or undertaking
5. › Elements of offence under s 40C
6. › Distinction between breach element and exposure element
7. › Whether exposure element requires proof of causal relationship between breach and risk
8. › Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld), ss 10, 28, 30, 40C
9. › Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 (Qld), ss 68, 69(2)
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Non-hearsay use of out-of-court statements
4. › Statement made in presence of accused
5. › Whether hearsay statement admissible to prove state of mind and awareness of risk but not truth of facts asserted

Quick Take

In prosecutions under s 40C of the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that the defendant failed to comply with the electrical safety duty (Breach Element) but also that the failure exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury (Exposure Element), which requires proof of a causal relationship between the breach and the exposure to risk; where the prosecution cannot prove when a hazard arose, it cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that the hazard arose too late for the defendant's failure to have caused the exposure.