WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Lane) v Australian Winch & Haulage Co Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 214

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Lane) v Australian Winch & Haulage Co Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 214

Statements inadmissible against a director on privilege grounds may, according to ordinary rules of evidence, be admissible against a corporate defendant in both joint and separate trials, supported by s31M(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, a certificate of conviction against a corporation or transcript from such proceedings is not admissible as proof of the contravention by a director under s50 in later proceedings, in light of Evidence Act ss91 and 178.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution / Reference of Questions of Law to Full Bench
Outcome
Questions of law answered; matter remitted to trial judge.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'offences by Corporations' 'certificate of Conviction' 'separate and Joint Trials']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'offences by Corporations' 'certificate of Conviction' 'separate and Joint Trials']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution / Reference of Questions of Law to Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a statement by a director inadmissible against him on privilege grounds is admissible against his company in joint or separate trials' 'Whether a certificate of conviction against a corporation, obtained using such a statement, is admissible against a director in subsequent proceedings' 'Whether a transcript of proceedings against the corporation is admissible against the director in separate proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Statements inadmissible against a director on privilege grounds may, according to ordinary rules of evidence, be admissible against a corporate defendant in both joint and separate trials, supported by s31M(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, a certificate of conviction against a corporation or transcript from such proceedings is not admissible as proof of the contravention by a director under s50 in later proceedings, in light of Evidence Act ss91 and 178.

Court Disposition

Questions of law answered; matter remitted to trial judge.

Orders

  • ['1. Yes, in each case (statement may be admissible against company in joint or separate trials).' '2. No (certificate of conviction against company not admissible against director in subsequent proceedings).' '3. No (transcript of proceedings against company not admissible against director in subsequent...