Inspector Pile v Sutherland [2011] NSWIRComm 163

Inspector Pile v Sutherland [2011] NSWIRComm 163

The elements of the offences under s 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and s 14 of the Home Building Act 1989 are not identical or substantially identical; the offences address different aspects of conduct and different statutory purposes. There is more than a theoretical possibility that different verdicts could result for each charge. Therefore, no abuse of process or double jeopardy arises, and the notice of motion to stay proceedings should be dismissed.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Kevin Pile of WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; Defendant: Forbye Sutherland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion to Stay Proceedings
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Double Jeopardy, Concurrent Proceedings, Statutory Offences, Supervision of Electrical Work
Occupational Health and Safety Building Law Criminal Law Abuse of Process Double Jeopardy Concurrent Proceedings Statutory Offences Supervision of Electrical Work

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Kevin Pile of WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

Prosecutor

Forbye Sutherland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion to Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether concurrent proceedings for alleged breaches of s 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and s 14 of the Home Building Act 1989 constitute double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether the elements of the offences are the same or substantially the same
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted on grounds of abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The elements of the offences under s 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and s 14 of the Home Building Act 1989 are not identical or substantially identical; the offences address different aspects of conduct and different statutory purposes. There is more than a theoretical possibility that different verdicts could result for each charge. Therefore, no abuse of process or double jeopardy arises, and the notice of motion to stay proceedings should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The defendant's motion is dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved.