DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd
[2001] VSC 293
•2 May 2001
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1484 of 2000
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ESSO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
R U L I N GNo. 11
---
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF RULING: | 2 May 2001 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2001] VSC 293 | |
---
Criminal law – evidence – charges under ss. 21, 22 and 47 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 – reference to discovery of bodies of deceased – relevance – lack of prejudice – admissibility.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Prosecution | R. Richter QC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | M. Titshall QC with M. Hennessy | Middletons Moore & Bevins |
R U L I N GNo. 11
HIS HONOUR:
I am against the submission that reference to the bodies is prejudicial or should be excluded. I certainly consider undue emphasis upon it is not to be permitted. However, as I apprehend both from Mr Clelland's submission and from a brief perusal of Mr Jones' statement of 22 December 1998, his proposed evidence is a narrative of the witness' observations and actions in the plant. Relevant to and part of that narrative of observations and actions is the discovery of the bodies. That plainly has a direct relevance to what he observed, his conduct, and the nature and extent of the risks of the events there and then occurring or having previously just occurred.
I agree with Mr Hennessy that there has been no issue as to the two tragic deaths, but that does not mean that the prosecution cannot lead relevant limited evidence on that matter as long as it does not involve prejudice. I consider it does not involve prejudice. The jury is aware that two persons died. As long as the matter is not dwelt upon, it will not involve the risk of prejudice and thus does not need to be eliminated.
Accordingly, what is proposed to be led by Mr Clelland is admissible.
---
0
0
0