find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (1-3 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Join a dynamic Firm · Excellent career growth opportunity
View details
In-house lawyer 1-4 PAE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Leading Brand · Report to a Dynamic Legal Counsel
View details
'Win-at-all-costs' case puts WorkCover's power at risk

'Win-at-all-costs' case puts WorkCover's power at risk

A recent and expensive case has highlighted the power of WorkCover, South Australia, to prosecute at will, riling the state's shadow Attorney General and its highest court.



The South Australian Supreme Court full panel has called for reforms to way WorkCover prosecutes and is prosecuted in fraud cases, to make a fair and impartial system. 


The call comes following accusations raised in parliament by the state's shadow Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, who said: “WorkCover alleges that it has spent more than $700,000 on prosecution costs in the case of Thompson v Duffin. The case has been thrown out by the Full Court of the Supreme Court on the grounds that the prosecution, which was directed by WorkCover and not by the DPP, acted improperly."


And Chapman told The New Lawyer today: “The judgment is utterly scathing of the action of WorkCover South Australia in proceeding in the case, of which they had already made an assessment to his entitlements." 


“[The Court] made such strong statements that, in future cases WorkCover should not be responsible for the decision on whether to prosecute.” 


The case of Thompson V Duffin, or WorkCover, was a workers' compensation fraud case, which saw Jeff Thompson charged with making fraudulent claims relating to an illness.

 

When handing down the judgment of the full court, Justice Bleby, Justice Gray and Justice Layton said the case was “conducted as if it were a civil recovery action on the part of WorkCover or as if it were defending a claim for income maintenance and other benefits… It bore all the hallmarks of a desire to win at all costs, with scant regard to the fact that it was prosecuting serious criminal offences.” 


They added: “The second matter of concern relates to the position of WorkCover as a complainant or 'victim' and WorkCover as a prosecutor. In most cases of criminal prosecutions, an independent agency of the State will conduct a prosecution based on information supplied by a complainant. However, the prosecutor does not represent the complainant. 


"In this case, WorkCover was, in effect, the complainant or victim, having allegedly paid to Thompson substantial benefits under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which it believed had been paid in circumstances where there was a breach of s 120 of the Act. But it was also the prosecutor. 


"The nominal complainant was an officer of WorkCover. WorkCover gave the instructions. The prosecution was conducted by WorkCover’s solicitors, not a State prosecuting authority. There was not that necessary degree of detachment between complainant or victim and prosecutor.” 


It is the detachment between the complainant or victim and prosecutor that Chapman wants addressed immediately. 

“I think the Attorney General agrees that something needs to be done, whether for prosecution purposes the DPP is the most suitable entity, or as he takes the view that the crown solicitor should do it.” 


Like WorkCover SA, the NSW, Victorian and Queensland bodies all have the same system in place, with no independent advisors or consultation. 


“WorkCover should not be responsible for the decision on whether to prosecute,” explained Chapman. 


“It’s not lonely a matter that has cost the tax payer, it’s a matter of principle, there has to be some independence.” 




Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

'Win-at-all-costs' case puts WorkCover's power at risk
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Warning
07:03
NT Law Society sounds alarm on mandatory sentencing
The Law Society Northern Territory has issued a warning over mandatory sentencing, saying it hasn’...
Unite
Aug 22 2017
Professionals unite in support of marriage equality
The presidents of representative bodies for solicitors, barristers and doctors in NSW have come toge...
Aug 21 2017
Is your firm on the right track for gig economy gains?
Promoted by Crowd & Co. The way we do business, where we work, how we engage with workers, ev...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...