MKP Management Pty Ltd v Shire of Kalamunda

(2020) 56 WAR 56; [2020] WASCA 130

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Corporate criminal responsibility
3. › Attribution of acts and mental states to body corporate
4. › Directing mind and will doctrine
5. › Whether independent contractor was directing mind or will of corporate accused
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Parties to offences
3. › Procuring commission of offence
4. › Mental element for procurement
5. › Whether procurer must know all essential facts constituting offence
6. › Whether knowledge that demolition permit not issued was an essential fact
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7(d)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Statutory offences
3. › Building offences
4. › Demolition without permit
5. › Whether prohibition directed at owner of land or person doing demolition work
6. › Building Act 2011 (WA), s 10(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › No substantial miscarriage of justice proviso
5. › Whether errors of law by magistrate resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 14(2)

Quick Take

Corporate criminal responsibility under s 7(a) of the Criminal Code (WA) is direct, not vicarious, and requires identification of a natural person who is the directing mind or will of the corporation in relation to the matter in question. An independent contractor engaged to achieve specified results is not the directing mind or will of the engaging corporation. Criminal responsibility as a procurer under s 7(d) requires proof that the alleged procurer knew all essential facts constituting the offence, including (for a s 10(a) Building Act offence) that no demolition permit had been issued. Section 10(a) of the Building Act 2011 (WA) does not impose a non-delegable duty on landowners to ensure demolition permits are obtained.