WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NSW (INSP MALTBY) v ABIGROUP CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED, WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NSW (INSP MANSELL) v LUIS BUSTAMANTE [2002] NSWIRComm 187

WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NSW (INSP MALTBY) v ABIGROUP CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED, WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NSW (INSP MANSELL) v LUIS BUSTAMANTE [2002] NSWIRComm 187

Because the defendants’ objection regarding compliance with s49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 was procedural and raised after the close of the prosecution’s case, the presumption of regularity holds until objection is made, and the court in its discretion grants leave for the prosecution to call further evidence in response to the objection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Judgment on Application to Call Further Evidence
Outcome
Leave granted to prosecution to call further evidence on compliance with s49(4)
Legal Topics
['statutory Time Limitations for Prosecutions' 'presumption of Regularity in Criminal Procedure' 'procedure for Abuse of Process Objections' 'requirements for Evidence for Extended Limitation Periods Under OHS Act']
['industrial Relations' 'criminal Law'] ['statutory Time Limitations for Prosecutions' 'presumption of Regularity in Criminal Procedure' 'procedure for Abuse of Process Objections' 'requirements for Evidence for Extended Limitation Periods Under OHS Act']

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

Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Judgment on Application to Call Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecution was commenced within the statutory limitation period under s49(1) or s49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'Whether the prosecution may call further evidence after the close of its case to prove compliance with s49(4)' 'Whether the defendants’ procedural objection as to time limitation should bar further evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants’ objection regarding compliance with s49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 was procedural and raised after the close of the prosecution’s case, the presumption of regularity holds until objection is made, and the court in its discretion grants leave for the prosecution to call further evidence in response to the objection.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to prosecution to call further evidence on compliance with s49(4)

Orders

  • ['Matter to be relisted for directions as to timetable for further evidence on whether prosecution complied with s49(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983']