Inspector Colin Fraser v Rocco Natoli [2010] NSWIRComm 180

Inspector Colin Fraser v Rocco Natoli [2010] NSWIRComm 180

Leave to withdraw the guilty pleas was refused because Kirk did not require the charges against the defendant as a director under s 26(1) to plead his own acts or omissions, the charges sufficiently identified Apex's alleged omissions, and the evidence showed that the defendant understood the nature of the charges, had legal advice, knew he could defend the charges, and entered the pleas voluntarily in the exercise of a free choice. His financial circumstances and later changed view based on Kirk did not establish a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Pursuant to Section 8(2) by Virtue of Section 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Defendant's Notices of Motion to Withdraw Pleas of Guilty Before Sentence Hearings
Outcome
The defendant's Notices of Motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty were dismissed; costs were reserved; the matters were set down for a directions hearing.
Legal Topics
['director Liability Under S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000' 'pleading Requirements After Kirk' 'withdrawal of Pleas of Guilty' 'construction Site Fall Risks']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Procedure'] ['director Liability Under S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000' 'pleading Requirements After Kirk' 'withdrawal of Pleas of Guilty' 'construction Site Fall Risks']

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

Prosecution Pursuant to Section 8(2) by Virtue of Section 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Defendant's Notices of Motion to Withdraw Pleas of Guilty Before Sentence Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Kirk required the charges against a director under s 8(2) by virtue of s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to plead the director's alleged failures to exercise due diligence." "Whether the charges sufficiently identified Apex's acts or omissions giving rise to the alleged risks." "Whether the defendant's financial circumstances and legal advice provided a basis to grant leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty." 'Whether refusing leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty would cause a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw the guilty pleas was refused because Kirk did not require the charges against the defendant as a director under s 26(1) to plead his own acts or omissions, the charges sufficiently identified Apex's alleged omissions, and the evidence showed that the defendant understood the nature of the charges, had legal advice, knew he could defend the charges, and entered the pleas voluntarily in the exercise of a free choice. His financial circumstances and later changed view based on Kirk did not establish a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

The defendant's Notices of Motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty were dismissed; costs were reserved; the matters were set down for a directions hearing.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's Notices of Motion in Matter Nos IC 1084, 1085 and 1086 of 2008 are dismissed." 'Costs are reserved.' 'Matter Nos IC 1084, 1085 and 1086 of 2008 are set down for a directions hearing at 9.30am on Thursday, 16 December 2010.']