Craig Alexander Morrison & Ors v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd & Ors

(1998) 19 WAR 482; [1998] WASCA 203

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › No case to answer
4. › Circumstantial evidence
5. › Whether evidence capable of sustaining verdict of guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt
6. › Whether criminal standard of persuasion applies at no case stage
1. Occupational Health and Safety
2. › Employer's duty
3. › System of work
4. › Failure to provide and maintain
5. › Fishing vessel lost in cyclone
6. › Admission by director that operations manual contained no cyclone procedure
7. › Whether admission equivocal or capable of inference that no relevant system in place
8. › Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1984 (WA), ss 19(1)(a), 19(6), 54, 55
1. Evidence
2. › Relevance
3. › Similar fact or similar practice evidence
4. › Systems of work employed by other operators
5. › Whether evidence of practices of other similar marine operators admissible on issue of practicability of system of work
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Retrial
4. › Order for retrial before different magistrate
5. › Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(d)

Quick Take

In Western Australia, the test for a no case to answer submission in criminal proceedings incorporates the criminal standard of proof: the question is whether the Crown evidence, taken at its highest, is capable of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The doubt expressed in R v Briggs is resolved in favour of the criminal standard as formulated in Bilick. Evidence of systems of work employed by other similar operators is admissible on the issue of practicability under s 19(1)(a) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1984 (WA).