DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd - [2000] VSC 572

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1484 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ESSO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Ruling No. 1

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	7 August 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 572

---

Criminal law – practice and procedure – venue and jurisdiction – charges under ss. 21, 22 and 47 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 – accused company committed to County Court for trial – removal to Supreme Court for trial – s. 359(1) Crimes Act 1958 – considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	R. Richter QC with N. Clelland	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	M. Titshall QC with M. Hennessy	Middletons Moore & Bevins

----------------------------

Ruling No. 1

HIS HONOUR:

The accused, Esso Australia Ltd, is charged with 21 counts pursuant to sections 21, 22 and 47 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985. The accused is presumed innocent of each and all of those counts and comes before this and any other court presumed innocent.

The accused company has been committed by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 1 February 2000 for trial in the County Court. That committal was essentially a hand up committal, co-operated in by the responsible conduct of the accused company, the parties having had the benefit of a Royal Commission presided over by Sir Daryl Dawson and another Commissioner who were appointed in October 1998 and who reported in June 1999. The matter remained in the County Court in the months following its direction to that court, that is to say, from 1 February 2000, without demur from the Director.

The Director now, pursuant to s.353(7) Crimes Act makes presentment in this court of those 21 counts. That is a matter in the discretion and decision of the Director; the provision states that the Director "may make presentment". However, it is, of course, for this court to control its process. These counts are not counts in the exclusive jurisdiction of this court, although they are indictable offences as provided by s.47(3) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985.

Essentially the prosecution applies pursuant to s.359(1) Crimes Act 1958 for a direction by this court that the matter be heard in this court. S.359(1) makes provision that the Supreme Court of its own motion or, as in this case, on the application of the Director, may order that the matter be tried in this court. Thus the matter comes before me today.

Mr Richter, who appears with Mr Clelland for the Director, has made a number of submissions to the end that this is an appropriate matter to be heard in this court, and Mr Titshall, who appears with Mr Hennessy for Esso Australia Ltd., has made a number of submissions to the opposite end.

Mr Titshall has most comprehensively and relevantly, if I may say so, submitted that, in essence, there is nothing in this case which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSC 572
Decision Date: 7 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Esso Australia Pty Ltd faced charges under sections 21, 22, and 47 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, which were brought before the County Court. The case was subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court, prompting a legal discussion regarding the jurisdiction and procedural appropriateness of such a transfer. The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court was correct in its decision to remove the case from the County Court for trial, particularly considering the provisions of section 359(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. This section allows for the transfer of cases to a higher court if it appears to the court that the case is one which ought to be tried in a higher court.

The Supreme Court, in exercising its discretion, considered various factors pertinent to the case. The court examined the severity and complexity of the charges, the potential impact of the case, and the need for a higher court to ensure a fair trial. It was noted that the offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, if proven, could result in significant penalties and implications for public safety. The court concluded that these considerations justified the transfer to the Supreme Court for a more comprehensive and fair trial. The Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to transfer the case, ensuring that the accused company would receive a trial in a court with the necessary jurisdiction and resources to handle the complexities involved.

The Supreme Court's decision to transfer the case was upheld, affirming that the considerations outlined were valid and warranted the change in venue. This ruling emphasised the importance of ensuring that serious occupational health and safety charges are tried in a court equipped to handle their complexity and potential repercussions. The final orders confirmed the transfer of the case to the Supreme Court for trial, reflecting the court's determination that the case required a higher judicial forum.

Orders