Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJBAIADA POULTRY PTY LTD  APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN  RESPONDENTBaiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 1430 March 2012M126/2011ORDER1.Appeal allowed.2.Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 18 February 2011 and, in its place, order that:(a)leave to appeal to that Court be granted;(b)the appeal to that Court be allowed;(c)the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd, be quashed; and(d)a new trial be had.On appeal from the Supreme Court of VictoriaRepresentationP G Priest QC with M J Croucher SC for the appellant (instructed by Norton Rose Australia)D A Trapnell SC with K Argiropoulos for the respondent (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic))Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSBaiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The QueenCriminal law – Appeal – Jury misdirection – Application of "proviso" – Appellant convicted of offence under Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) – Trial judge failed to direct jury that prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt particular element of offence in issue – Whether appellate court able to conclude that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred – Whether judicial "discretion" in applying proviso.Words and phrases – "proviso", "substantial miscarriage of justice".Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 568(1).Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), s 21.FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CRENNAN JJ.   The appellant was tried in the County Court of...