Fry v Keating

[2013] WASCA 109

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Occupational Health and Safety
2. › Employer's duty to provide safe working environment
3. › Director's liability for company's offence
4. › Whether offence attributable to neglect on part of directors
5. › Whether prosecution required to prove directors knew or ought to have known of unsafe method on day of fatality
6. › Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA), s 19(1), s 55(1)
1. Sentencing
2. › Apportionment of fine
3. › Joint offenders
4. › Whether company and directors convicted under deeming provision are joint offenders
5. › Whether legal relationship alone results in criminal responsibility
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 55
1. Costs
2. › Criminal proceedings
3. › Prosecutor's entitlement to costs
4. › Whether prosecutor must be a law practice to recover costs
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 67
6. › Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 275
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Occupational health and safety offence causing death
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Quick Take

Directors' neglect under s 55(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA) may be established by proof that they failed to implement adequate systems and procedures to ensure safe work practices, without the prosecution needing to prove that the directors knew or ought to have known of the specific unsafe practice on the day of the incident. A company and its directors convicted under s 55(1) are not 'joint offenders' for the purposes of s 55 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), so apportionment of the company's fine between the company and directors is not available. A prosecutor is entitled to recover costs under s 67(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) regardless of whether the prosecutor is a 'law practice'.