DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd - [2003] VSC 367

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1484 of 2000

IN THE MATTER of s.85B Sentencing Act 1991 Compensation Applications

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ESSO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 September 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 September 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 367

---

Crimes compensation – Applications by victims pursuant to s.85B Sentencing Act 1991 – Psychiatric injury – Depressive disorder – Adjustment disorder – Grief, pain and suffering – Victims children of employee victim – Marital separation of parents of victims direct result of offences and compensable – Applications consequent upon convictions for offences under ss.21 and 22 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 – Considerations applicable – Orders for compensation made.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicants	Mr D. Hore-Lacy SC with Mr D. Bracken	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
For the Respondent Esso Australia Pty Ltd	Mr D.E. Curtain QC With Mr S. O'Meara	Middletons

HIS HONOUR:

On 28 June 2001, after a four month trial, Esso Australia Pty Ltd was found guilty by a jury on eleven counts of breaches of s.21 and s. 22 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. By reason of s.47(3) of that Act, each of those convictions was of an indictable offence. The convictions essentially were of failures to provide and maintain, so far as was practicable, a safe workplace and safe systems of work at Esso Australia's major gas processing facility at Longford, Victoria. On 25 September 1998, as a consequence of Esso's failure, a catastrophic rupture in plant had occurred. Explosions and fires ensued, two employees tragically were killed, eight others were seriously injured and numerous persons were caused significant trauma, pain and suffering. On 30 July 2001, I imposed fines totalling $2,000,000 upon Esso Australia for the eleven offences.

The circumstances of the eleven offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 and of which Esso Australia Pty Ltd has been convicted are set out in the sentence I imposed on 30 July 2001. They are a matter of public record and I shall not here repeat them.

Numerous persons have made application in this court for compensation for injury suffered as a result of the offences of which Esso Australia was convicted. On 19 December 2001 I ordered the payment by Esso Australia Pty Ltd of compensation to numerous victims of the rupture and explosions at Longford on 25 September 1998. On 23 June 2003 I made further orders of compensation to further victims.

Today before me are two further claims for compensation, on behalf of the children of Mr James Ward, control room operator on the day of the rupture and explosions and of Mrs Elizabeth Ward. The children are Haydn James Ward, now 16 years and 9 months of age, and Katlyn Elizabeth Ward, now…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 367
Case: [2003] VSC 367
Decision Date: 30 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Esso Australia Pty Ltd was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the dispute centred around claims for compensation by victims of crimes under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991. Esso Australia Pty Ltd had been convicted for offences under sections 21 and 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, which resulted in the death of an employee and significant psychiatric injury to the deceased’s family members. The victims sought compensation for their injuries, including depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, and grief, pain, and suffering, as well as the marital separation of the victims' parents, which they claimed was a direct result of the offences.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, primarily whether the psychiatric injuries and the marital separation of the parents were compensable under section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court also needed to consider the appropriate considerations when awarding compensation in such cases, including the extent of the harm suffered and the connection between the harm and the offence for which Esso Australia Pty Ltd was convicted.

In its reasoning, the court found that the psychiatric injuries and the marital separation were indeed compensable under the act. The court recognised that the victims had suffered significant harm as a result of the offences committed by Esso Australia Pty Ltd. The court emphasised that the compensation should reflect the full extent of the harm suffered, including both the direct and indirect consequences of the offences. Following this reasoning, the court made orders for compensation to be paid to the victims. This decision highlights the importance of recognising and compensating for the broader impacts of criminal offences on victims and their families.

Orders