Morrison v Murray [2005] NSWIRComm 142

Morrison v Murray [2005] NSWIRComm 142

The Memorandum, with its 'subject to consultation' qualification, did not amount to a sufficient written consent to prosecute Powercoal under s48(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983, as further written approval was required. However, it constituted a valid written consent for prosecution against the individually named defendants, for whom the recommendation was sufficiently specific and not qualified. No written delegated authority for Mr Morrison was required.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rodney Morrison; Defendant: Bradley Dean Murray; Defendant: Michael John Barrett; Defendant: Powercoal Pty Limited; Defendant: David Glen Coutts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Reference From Interlocutory Proceedings (criminal Jurisidiction) / Full Bench Decision Following Reference on Questions of Law
Outcome
Matter remitted to trial judge for further determination; answers to reference questions provided.
Legal Topics
Consent to Prosecution, Jurisdiction, Written Consent Requirements, Delegated Authority, Stay of Proceedings
Industrial Law Criminal Law Occupational Health and Safety Consent to Prosecution Jurisdiction Written Consent Requirements Delegated Authority Stay of Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Morrison

Prosecutor

Bradley Dean Murray

Defendant

Michael John Barrett

Defendant

Powercoal Pty Limited

Defendant

David Glen Coutts

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Reference From Interlocutory Proceedings (criminal Jurisidiction) / Full Bench Decision Following Reference on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Memorandum constitutes valid written consent to prosecute under s48(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983
  2. 2 Does 'subject to consultation' vitiate consent?
  3. 3 Adequacy of consent for individual defendants versus corporate defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Memorandum, with its 'subject to consultation' qualification, did not amount to a sufficient written consent to prosecute Powercoal under s48(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983, as further written approval was required. However, it constituted a valid written consent for prosecution against the individually named defendants, for whom the recommendation was sufficiently specific and not qualified. No written delegated authority for Mr Morrison was required.

Court Disposition

Matter remitted to trial judge for further determination; answers to reference questions provided.

Orders

  • The Memorandum does not constitute a valid consent to commence prosecution against Powercoal.
  • The Memorandum constitutes a valid consent to commence prosecution against Bradley Dean Murray, Michael John Barrett, and David Glen Coutts.