Star Aviation case crumbles as magistrate admits 'intemperate' criticism

Industrial Magistrate Lorraine Walker admitted her comments were "regrettably intemperate" and stemmed from frustration the criminal case against Qantas contractor Star Aviation had derailed.

But Ms Walker still threw out out the case against the company on a technicality after she found the charges before the court had been faulty.

Star Aviation was charged after a cleaner allegedly hurt his back when he fell backwards from the service door of a Q400 turboprop aircraft parked in the QantasLink hangar at Canberra Airport in January 2014.

The worker had been mopping the plane when he allegedly dropped more than 1.5 metres onto the concrete ground of the maintenance hangar, landing on his back and fracturing his spine and ribs.

The company pleaded not guilty to two work safety breaches.

A court hearing had to be abandoned in December when it emerged defence lawyers and prosecutors had not agreed on details of the allegations and particulars of the charges the company faced.

The problem sparked staunch criticism in court from Ms Walker, who described the case as "a mess" and said the company was at a "significant disadvantage" after it took more than two years to come to trial.

Ms Walker asked the prosecutor: "The charges being defective, why should I allow the prosecution to proceed?"

She also blasted the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions' approach to industrial cases more broadly, arguing they had been "abysmally run" and "plagued by a lack of diligence".

Ms Walker said she had noticed problems every time industrial cases went to hearing and the lack of effective prosecution caused delays that disadvantaged defendants.

Her comments prompted prosecutors to launch an application for Ms Walker to recuse herself from the case, arguing her "highly critical" comments could create the appearance of bias and prevent a fair hearing.

The prosecution accused the magistrate of "inviting a challenge to the charge" and rejected claims industrial matters hadn't been run properly.

Star Aviation's lawyers said the application made it look like the prosecution was "judge shopping".

In a written decision, Ms Walker admitted she had "used intemperate language regarding the manner in which work, health and safety prosecutions have been conducted in the territory".

"The observations went beyond those strictly necessary for the matter before me.

"My regrettably intemperate response reflected frustration at the prospect of resolution of the matter being derailed."

However, she found her comments did not indicate she wouldn't judge the matters before her fairly as a result of voicing those concerns.

Ms Walker said her observations of the case were "factual and did not evidence any attitude of impartiality" and it was "entirely proper" to raise the defective charges and their possible consequences.

She dismissed the bias application, saying her conduct would not raise "a reasonable apprehension of prejudgment in an informed, fair-minded lay observer" that she would judge the case on anything other than its legal merits.

Ms Walker said the charges had been defective because they failed to specify essential elements of the alleged criminal offences.

While the particulars of the charges could technically be fixed, she said, they could not be amended out of time.

She dismissed both charges.

Star Aviation was brought before the court after WorkSafe ACT investigated the worker's fall and alleged the airline breached its duty of care under the Work Health and Safety Act.

It was alleged the company failed to identify the risk posed by falling from an aircraft, didn't implement measures to lessen the risk of a worker falling, and failed to provide proper information about risks of a fall to the worker involved.

Qantas entered into an enforceable undertaking with WorkSafe ACT to improve its safety practices and policies in response to the incident.