Inspector Jessica Doyle v Gignen Pty Ltd and Inspector Jessica Doyle v Tempo Services Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 374

Inspector Jessica Doyle v Gignen Pty Ltd and Inspector Jessica Doyle v Tempo Services Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 374

The offences were proved because the defendants knew, or ought to have known, of the general risk of assault to cleaners working alone or in isolated areas, yet did not implement and enforce an adequate system at Llandilo Public School. The Court held that the defendants failed to provide a safe system of work, an adequate communication system, proper risk assessment, and adequate information, instruction and training. The defendants' reliance on the particular offender's strength and criminal intent addressed the wrong issue, because the charges concerned the general occupational risk and the manner in which the cleaners were exposed to it. The later adoption of measures such as team...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Under S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment After Hearing on Pleas of Not Guilty; Liability Determined and Sentence to Be Listed
Outcome
Gignen Pty Ltd and Tempo Services Ltd found guilty of the charges particularised against them.
Legal Topics
['safe System of Work' 'cleaners Working Alone or in Isolated Areas' 'risk Assessment' 'communication Systems' 'workplace Assault Risk' 'statutory Defences Under S 28(a) and S 28(b)']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'employment and Workplace Safety' 'criminal Prosecution'] ['safe System of Work' 'cleaners Working Alone or in Isolated Areas' 'risk Assessment' 'communication Systems' 'workplace Assault Risk' 'statutory Defences Under S 28(a) and S 28(b)']

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

Prosecutions Under S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment After Hearing on Pleas of Not Guilty; Liability Determined and Sentence to Be Listed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Gignen Pty Ltd breached s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of its employee Mary Rogers and other cleaners working alone or in isolated areas.' 'Whether Tempo Services Ltd breached s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 in relation to persons at its workplace by failing to ensure cleaners were not exposed to risks to their health or safety.' 'Whether the defendants failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate communication, proper risk assessment, adequate supervision, and adequate information, instruction and training for cleaners working alone or in isolated areas.' 'Whether the statutory defences in s 28(a) and s 28(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were proved because the defendants knew, or ought to have known, of the general risk of assault to cleaners working alone or in isolated areas, yet did not implement and enforce an adequate system at Llandilo Public School. The Court held that the defendants failed to provide a safe system of work, an adequate communication system, proper risk assessment, and adequate information, instruction and training. The defendants' reliance on the particular offender's strength and criminal intent addressed the wrong issue, because the charges concerned the general occupational risk and the manner in which the cleaners were exposed to it. The later adoption of measures such as team...

Court Disposition

Gignen Pty Ltd and Tempo Services Ltd found guilty of the charges particularised against them.

Orders

  • ['The defendants are found guilty of the charges particularised against them in each case.' 'The parties are to discuss appropriate dates for the hearing of the evidence and submissions on sentence and contact the Associate to set the matter down for that purpose.']