Inspector Kumar v Steel [2006] NSWIRComm 95

Inspector Kumar v Steel [2006] NSWIRComm 95

The penalty imposed by the sentencing judge did not involve any error of principle or miscarriage of discretion, and taking into account the level of culpability, personal circumstances and comparative roles, the penalty was not manifestly inadequate.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Ken Kumar; Defendant: Donald William Steel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Bench Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Prosecutorial Appeal, Director Liability, Workplace Safety
Occupational Health and Safety Criminal Law Sentencing Prosecutorial Appeal Director Liability Workplace Safety

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Ken Kumar

Prosecutor

Donald William Steel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on Mr Steel was manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing Mr Steel's culpability

Ratio Decidendi

The penalty imposed by the sentencing judge did not involve any error of principle or miscarriage of discretion, and taking into account the level of culpability, personal circumstances and comparative roles, the penalty was not manifestly inadequate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to the costs of the appeal.