JUDGMENT No. ./224.1....8 NOT FOR CIRCULATION ; IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Nos. I60, 161, i862 of } ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION CONCILIATION AND ARBITRTAION ACT 1904, SECTIONS 125(10)(a) AND 125(10)(b) BETWEEN : DANIEL HAJEK Prosecutor AND: JOYCE ROSE LOWINGER Defendant JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. DATE OF ORDER: 14 MARCH 1988 WHERE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY MINUTE GF QRDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The defendant is fined $300 governing the offences proceedings numbers 160 and I6l of 1987. 2. The defendant is fined $200 governing the oftrences proceeding number [653 of i987. 3. The defendant be allowed three months t9 pay the penaities. 4. There be no order as to the costs of any party proceeding. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order the Federal Court Ruies. in ait fon IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Nos. 160, Tat, Tb? ot ISR7 ) ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ARBITRTAION LLsyicyéa? CONCILTATION ACT i904,, AND 125¢10:(b) BETWEEN: DANIEL HAJEK Prasecutor AND: JOYCE ROSE LOWINGER Defendant 14 March 1928 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. These are tnree proceedings fer prosecution of Joyce Rose Lowinger for three offences against sub-ss. 125(10)(a' and lshilOeh' ef the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act'). Hv cansent, all three matters are being heard tcgether. The deterngant enterec a olea of guilty in each case. Tt 28 common crround that the Tarst two offences arise out ot the same facts ani that ure renalty is appropriate in relation ta the two matrers. Although the .ffence in proceeding number [62 of 1987 is in a sense a r@latei matter, i115 a separate and distinct offence which tcok piace on a citferent Gate. 1 therefore cropase to deal with the first two inici:maticns on the Satast of one penalty and the third infermaticn as a separate matters The relevant facts are in a short compass and need not se narrated im full, since the varties have tendered an agreed statement of facts which speaks tor itself. Tt 1s sufficient to say that proceeding number 160 and proceeding number 161 of 1987 relate ta events on 24 November 1986. On that occasion the defendant committed an offence against sub-s. 125(10)(b) of the Act in that she refused, without reasonable excuse, tu compiv with a requirement made by ar inspector in accordance with sun-s. J125(6)(b)tiv) of the Act. The anspector made a requirement to the defendant in premises located at 22 Denham Street Bondi ("the premises"), in which, it appears, a small clothing business was heing conducted by the detendant. It 1s saic that the inspector had reascnable cause to believe that work ta which ur nq ar had. been ba an award (as defined in the Act* appliad was e performed on those premises. The requirement made to the defendant was to produce to the inspector tor his inspection ail books and documents in her custody relating to the employment of persons by her at the premises. No books and dccuments were produced as required. The other offence relating to that day is that the inspector was refused entry to the premises which constitutes a sevarate offence under s. 125(10;(a) of the Act. The third offence. in oroceedinag numper TSl ot atts', as cha: on 23 December 1987 ,the defendant. without reasonable excuse, Larsnd to comply with a requirement made sy an inspectar sn accordance with sub-s. 125(7)(a) of the Act. Again, 'the inseectsr reaguirerd tty production of all books and documents relating to the #mpiavment 7 persons by the defendant at the oremises. The requirement het veer yo=Y ad -SPeC TY made in writing to the defendant, +s°*ved personali lat ty on the defendant on 8 December 1986 at the premises. The notice specified that the books and documents were to be produced Gn £3 December at a specified address but no books er documents were produced. Certain matters have been put ta me by caounsei For the defendant in mitigation of the circumstances in which the offences occurred and as to penalty. I need not relate those circumstances, which have been taken into account. I do not think that the matter is appropriate for invoking s. 19B or s. 20 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I think penalties are called for ain the circumstances. Tt must he ¢ Six montnc borne 1n mind that there is a maximum penalty of S809 imprisonment in relation to affences of this character. The penalties that [ propose to impose are as Xoliows. As t the offences in proceedings number [60 and I61 of 1987 the appropriat penalty is a fine of $300, which governs the offences ain bar informations. As to the offence in proceeding number I62 cf 1987 propose to impose a fine of $200, making a total fine of $50 Accordingly, those fines are imposed. I will allow three months from today for the defendant to the fines. I certify that this and the voreceding two (2) pages are a true copy at the ~ reasons for 'Sudgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lackhart. Associate A TRocke Hate: 1d March i988 Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions ' Counsel for the Defendant: A.W. Bastian ! Date of Hearing: 14 March 1988 } Date of Judgment: 14 March 1988 ee ere