Henry Walker Contracting Pty Ltd v Farnworth

[2000] WASCA 253

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. › Complaint in Petty Sessions
4. › Particulars
5. › Amendment of particulars
6. › Whether substitution of new particulars creates a different offence
7. › Whether amendment should be allowed as matter of discretion
8. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 9(1)(e)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › No case to answer
4. › Test for prima facie case
5. › Whether evidence established prima facie case of failure to make arrangements for safe maintenance of plant
6. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 9(1)(e)
1. Mines and Mining
2. › Occupational health and safety
3. › Duties of employers
4. › Meaning of 'arrangements' in relation to plant
5. › Whether provision and use of belt clamps constituted 'arrangements' for maintenance or maintenance itself
6. › Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), s 9(1)(e)
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Whether evidence of supervisor's instruction to employees was hearsay
4. › Admissibility of evidence of instructions given

Quick Take

The provision and use of safety equipment (such as belt clamps) constitutes an 'arrangement' for maintenance within s 9(1)(e) of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA), rather than maintenance itself. A failure to make arrangements for safe maintenance properly includes a failure to give instructions to use available safety equipment. Proposed amendments to particulars that would widen the prosecution case to require the defendant to face a substantially different case may properly be refused as a matter of discretion, even where the amendment would not technically create a different offence.