He defended himself at trial, but asked no questions, called and gave no evidence and made no submissions on the law.

The judge described Sproull as “a business operator who was determined to thwart the investigation process” when sentencing him to pay a fine of $2000.

Sproull’s arguments about WorkSafe staff properly identifying themselves were again at the crux of his case in the Court of Appeal.

According to the court’s decision, Sproull said WorkSafe failed to properly disclose relevant documents on that point.

While WorkSafe did not provide that information before Sproull’s trial, it was given leave during the trial to present documents which proved the inspectors had authority to inspect Sproull’s farm.

Sproull argued there was no legal basis for letting that evidence in during the trial, which raised the risk of a miscarriage of justice and wrongful conviction.

WorkSafe argued Sproull had not raised any matter of public importance, so his appeal should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with WorkSafe.

Sproull never made any objection during the trial about the way inspectors were delegated authority to inspect his farm.

While he sent a query about it to WorkSafe before the trial, that was not the same as raising it at trial.

But even if he did raise the issue during the trial, the evidence WorkSafe was given leave to present put the issue to bed.

WorkSafe’s error on not giving him that information did not change the factual and legal position of the inspectors’ authority.

The Court of Appeal did note Sproull was self-represented at trial, so he may not have known he had to bring the issue up with the trial judge.

“But such lack of knowledge cannot allow him to avoid the legal consequences of failing to take the appropriate step at trial.”