It can easily be said I don't have the highest opinion of NSW Police Prosecutors. Whilst I have respect for policing in general I have seen personally the incompetence of Police Prosecutors and this largely comes from them having no real legal training yet still appearing before the courts.
Before a Solicitor or Barrister appears before the courts they spend years at university and then do PLT (Practical Legal Training). The police do a couple of weeks training over a long period internally and then are 'prosecutors'. This is not the case with DPP prosecutors or SafeWork prosecutors (who are usually barristers retained by the government). Police seem aware of this and have invented the Accelerated Prosecutor Recruitment Program (APRP) where they will take Law Graduates and fast track them into prosecution positions.
Why is it important to understand this difference? Because it costs taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars everytime these clowns file malicious charges. Such is the case of R (NSW Police) v Mainfreight Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 459.
At about 11.00am on 7 March 2022 police pulled over a B-double truck on the Sturt Highway at Gillenbah, New South Wales. The truck was transporting doors from Carlisle in Perth to Lansvale in Sydney. The load had moved in transit and was bulging through the curtains of the trailer and the trailer appeared to be leaning towards the nearside of the vehicle. Measurements were taken and the load was protruding 750mm over the edge of the trailer which is an offence in the severe category. The truck was being driven by Harvinder Singh and another driver Rajat Dua was asleep in the bunk. The drivers were employed by New Maja Transport Pty Ltd, a company based in Queensland. The drivers produced a Load Manifest that displayed the Mainfreight logo on the top left corner of the document. The police took a photograph of the Load Manifest. The Load Manifest contained the pick-up address for the load at Hume Doors and Timber at Carlisle and specified a delivery address for the load to Hume Doors and Timber at Lansvale. The drivers had taken over driving the truck at a roadhouse in Mundrabilla, Western Australia. The drivers informed the police that the truck had been loaded by Mainfreight.
Now the police tried to charge Mainfreight under CoR (Chain of Responsibility) for two offences;
drive or permit a person to drive a vehicle that does not comply with loading requirements (severe) contrary to s 111(1)(c) of the Heavy Vehicle National Law 2013 (NSW); and
drive or permit a person to drive a vehicle that does not comply with dimension requirements (severe), contrary to s 102(1)(b)(iii) Heavy Vehicle National Law 2013 (NSW).
This is an idiotic tactic simply because Mainfreight are too far removed in the chain from either Loading or Dimension requirements (in this specific case, not in general). If Mainfreight had asked the drivers to transport a 4m wide item, sure they could be charged with a 102(1)(b)(iii) offence. But they asked them to transport items within dimensions. The drivers did not secure the load properly which if anything means the only people charged should be the Drivers, Hume Doors and New Maja Transport Pty Ltd (who could also face charges for not providing Information, Training, Instruction and Supervision).
NB - Chain of Responsibility is so simple I would honestly expect a third year law student to be able to handle a prosecution better than this.
Mainfreight asked the police prosecutor for a Brief, the police refused to hand over the brief. Mainfreight subpoenaed the brief, the proceedings were ultimately listed for hearing at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 2 November 2022. - to say the 'brief' was lacking in evidence, well it's not the stupidest brief I've read from a police prosecutor this year, but it is close. It consisted of no interviews, no affidavits and a couple of photos of the truck (the truck having an unsecured load was not the issue here, whether Mainfreight was responsible was - AFFIDAVITS AND INTERVIEWS WOULD BE KEY HERE!)
On 31 October 2022, two days before the scheduled hearing date on 2 November 2022, the appellant informed Mainfreight’s solicitors that it intended to withdraw the charges (basically, they would have realised their crappy brief would not support a prima facie review . On 2 November 2022 Mainfreight’s counsel and solicitor appeared before the magistrate at Wagga Wagga Local Court. The charges were withdrawn and dismissed. Mainfreight sought an order for its costs.
Initially Police were ordered to pay $85,968.00 by Magistrate Rabbidge but on appeal they received a $22,953.62 relief by Judge Scotting.
Oh, and police had to retain prestigious law firm Makinson d’Apice who specialise in government 'oopsies' in court. I imagine this added a good chunk to the bill the taxpayer footed.
I am all for companies being held to account, that is why I religiously cover WHS Court in NSW. But I also hate seeing a complete waste of taxpayer money.
The moment it's more complicated than a drink driving or low value theft, I think police need to be removed from the equation and let competent legal practitioners work. If they can completely bungle a transport safety prosecution, I hate to think how many other cases they bungle each year.