Yamasa Seafood Australia Pty Ltd v Watkins [2000] VSC 156

449. For the reasons earlier stated, in my opinion, the learned magistrate was entitled to have regard to those documents and any other material which was tendered in determining whether he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appointment of the inspector had been proved. That was so although the appointment of Watkins as an inspector was not made pursuant to the notice of variation of duties. That document was simply another item of material which the learned magistrate was entitled to have regard to in deciding whether he was satisfied that the appointment had in fact been validly made.

(a) The oral evidence of Watkins, taken together with the presumption of regularity and Exhibits "NA2" and 'NA3" were sufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the informant, Watkins, had been validly appointed an inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985;

(b) Upon tendering of Exhibit "LL" and proof that it was made by the Director General, the authority to appoint Watkins an inspector, and the valid exercise of power to make that appointment, pursuant to s.37(4) of the Public Service Act 1974, was established;