WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Belley) v Steven Carl Akerman [2007] NSWIRComm 55

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Belley) v Steven Carl Akerman [2007] NSWIRComm 55

Because the defendant had been personally served with the relevant judgments and notice of the penalty proceedings, and nevertheless entered no appearance, the Court could proceed ex parte. The offence was serious, the defendant as project manager had greater culpability than the other directors, and general deterrence and parity were relevant. Specific deterrence carried limited weight, there were no prior convictions and little evidence of subjective mitigation. A conviction, penalty of $18,500, moiety to the prosecutor and assessed costs of $7353.03 were therefore ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Pursuant to S 10(2) and by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment as to Penalty on an Ex Parte Basis
Outcome
Defendant convicted and penalty imposed.
Legal Topics
['sentencing for Occupational Health and Safety Act Offence' 'ex Parte Sentencing After Service' 'director Liability' 'objective Seriousness' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'costs']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['sentencing for Occupational Health and Safety Act Offence' 'ex Parte Sentencing After Service' 'director Liability' 'objective Seriousness' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'costs']

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 S 10(2) and by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Judgment as to Penalty on an Ex Parte Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court could proceed to impose sentence on an ex parte basis after personal service on the defendant in the United States of America.' 'What penalty should be imposed for the proved offence under s 10(2) by virtue of s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'How the principle of parity should apply given the penalties imposed on the corporate defendant and the other directors.' 'Whether general deterrence and specific deterrence were relevant to penalty.' "Whether the prosecutor's costs should be ordered and assessed under s 253 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant had been personally served with the relevant judgments and notice of the penalty proceedings, and nevertheless entered no appearance, the Court could proceed ex parte. The offence was serious, the defendant as project manager had greater culpability than the other directors, and general deterrence and parity were relevant. Specific deterrence carried limited weight, there were no prior convictions and little evidence of subjective mitigation. A conviction, penalty of $18,500, moiety to the prosecutor and assessed costs of $7353.03 were therefore ordered.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and penalty imposed.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'A penalty of $18,500 is imposed.' 'A moiety is allocated to the prosecutor on the usual terms.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs in the sum of $7353.03."]