Inspector Dall v Caines [2011] NSWIRComm 166

Inspector Dall v Caines [2011] NSWIRComm 166

The Court accepted that Inspector Bell was an Inspector authorised under Pt 5 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and was exercising investigation functions after observing work at height without adequate fall protection. The Court found that the defendant, knowing or having reason to believe that Bell was from WorkCover, angrily shouted abusive words to the effect particularised, made an offensive gesture, and challenged the Inspector to cross the road while other men stood behind him. That conduct caused the Inspector reasonably to fear for his safety, deterred him from exercising his functions, and at least amounted to an attempt to intimidate him, and at its highest actual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offence Under S 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Hearing on Plea of Not Guilty; Principal Judgment on Guilt, With Sentencing to Be Listed
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of a breach of s 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 as particularised in the Application for Order.
Legal Topics
['intimidating or Threatening an Authorised Official' 'work Cover Inspector Powers' 'strict Liability' 'honest and Reasonable Belief' 'unsafe Work at Height' 'proof of Identity by Inspector']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law' 'criminal Law'] ['intimidating or Threatening an Authorised Official' 'work Cover Inspector Powers' 'strict Liability' 'honest and Reasonable Belief' 'unsafe Work at Height' 'proof of Identity by Inspector']

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

Prosecution for Offence Under S 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Hearing on Plea of Not Guilty; Principal Judgment on Guilt, With Sentencing to Be Listed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Inspector Bell was an authorised official exercising functions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'Whether the defendant intimidated or threatened or attempted to intimidate Inspector Bell in the exercise of those functions.' 'Whether s 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 is a strict liability offence and whether any defence of honest and reasonable belief arose.' 'Whether s 136(1)(b) creates one offence or more than one offence.' 'Whether the failure to prove that the defendant traded as Coral Coatings affected the prosecution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted that Inspector Bell was an Inspector authorised under Pt 5 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and was exercising investigation functions after observing work at height without adequate fall protection. The Court found that the defendant, knowing or having reason to believe that Bell was from WorkCover, angrily shouted abusive words to the effect particularised, made an offensive gesture, and challenged the Inspector to cross the road while other men stood behind him. That conduct caused the Inspector reasonably to fear for his safety, deterred him from exercising his functions, and at least amounted to an attempt to intimidate him, and at its highest actual...

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of a breach of s 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 as particularised in the Application for Order.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is found guilty of a breach of s 136(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 as particularised in the Application for Order.' "The legal representatives of the parties should contact the Judge's Associate regarding suitable dates for the sentencing hearing."]