Inspector Rodney Morrison v Phillip Edward Harris Hams [2002] NSWIRComm 216

Inspector Rodney Morrison v Phillip Edward Harris Hams [2002] NSWIRComm 216

Although the breach was objectively serious and would ordinarily warrant a substantial penalty for deterrence, the defendant's contrition, full cooperation, remedial action, earliest opportunity guilty plea, good character and minimal means under s 6 of the Fines Act justified reducing the penalty to $10,000 and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Pursuant to S 16(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Penalty Following Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant found guilty, convicted, fined $7,500 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as quantified.
Legal Topics
['breach of S 16(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'self Employed Person Exposing Persons Not in Employment to Health or Safety Risks' 'serious Offence' 'fine' 'means of Defendant Under S 6 of the Fines Act' 'costs' 'moiety']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['breach of S 16(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983' 'self Employed Person Exposing Persons Not in Employment to Health or Safety Risks' 'serious Offence' 'fine' 'means of Defendant Under S 6 of the Fines Act' 'costs' 'moiety']

Source-derived case record

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 Pursuant to S 16(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Penalty Following Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's guilty plea to breach of s 16(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983." "How the defendant's limited means should be taken into account under s 6 of the Fines Act." "Whether the defendant should pay the prosecutor's costs and how those costs should be quantified."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the breach was objectively serious and would ordinarily warrant a substantial penalty for deterrence, the defendant's contrition, full cooperation, remedial action, earliest opportunity guilty plea, good character and minimal means under s 6 of the Fines Act justified reducing the penalty to $10,000 and then applying a 25 percent discount for the early plea, resulting in a fine of $7,500. Costs were ordered for the prosecutor, but limited by quantification as if the proceedings had commenced before the Chief Industrial Magistrate because the defendant should not bear additional costs caused by concurrent proceedings against the company.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty, convicted, fined $7,500 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as quantified.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is found guilty of the offence with which he was charged in the originating order and is convicted accordingly.' 'The defendant is to pay a fine of $7,500 with a moiety to the prosecutor.' 'The defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutor quantified as if the proceedings had been commenced before...