DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2003] VSC 232


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

In the matter of s 85B Sentencing Act 1991
  Compensation Application

No. 1484 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
ESSO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

---

JUDGE:

Cummins J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATES OF HEARING:

26 February 2003

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

24 June 2003

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2003] VSC 232

---

CRIMES COMPENSATION – application by victim pursuant to s 85B Sentencing Act 1991 – psychiatric injury – post-traumatic stress disorder – grief, pain and suffering – employee - application consequent upon convictions for offences under ss 21 and 22 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 – considerations applicable – order for compensation made.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr J.D. Keenan QC
with Mr G.J. Burns
Simon Parsons & Co.
For the Respondent
Esso Australia Pty Ltd
Mr D.E. Curtain QC
with Mr S.A. O'Meara
Middletons

HIS HONOUR:

  1. In this judgment I adopt the general criteria set out in paragraphs 1-17 of the judgment in the same title, being [2003] VSC 222.

  1. Martin Joseph Smith, technician, was working in that capacity at the plant at Longford on the day of the explosions.  He was directly involved in and exposed to the explosions and their sequelae including injured and missing persons.  His victim impact statement sets out in vivid detail his traumatic experiences that day.

  1. Mr Martin Smith went back to the site the next day and continmually thereafter.  He was confronted with the sequelae of the explosions constantly.

  1. Mr Smith's victim impact statement sets out the longitudinal deleterious effects of the explosions and their sequelae upon himself, his wife and family.  He sets out the effects on his way of life.  His wife, Mrs Kathie Smith in a statement of 30 November 2002 confirms his history.  They have two teenage children.

  1. A comprehensive report of Dr Edward Cole, psychiatrist, of 16 July 2002 concludes that Mr Martin Smith suffers from a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder of moderate degree accompanied by reactive depression.  Psychiatric treatment and antidepressant medication would be appropriate.  He is unlikely ever to recover fully.  A report of Mr John Hodgson, psychologist of Traralgon of 24 January 2003 confirms Dr Cole's report.

  1. Mr Martin Smith is aged 44 years, having been born on 14 November 1958.

  1. In evidence before me Mr Martin Smith impressed me as a thoroughly decent, thoughtful man who plainly has been burdened and troubled by the explosions and their sequelae. 

  1. In all the circumstances I order that the sum of $100,000 be paid by the respondent to Mr Martin Smith for the pain and suffering caused to him as a direct result of the offences.

  1. I direct that the respondent pay Mr Martin Smith's costs of this proceeding on the same basis as of the applicants yesterday.

Details
AGLC
Director of Public Prosecutions v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 232
Case
[2003] VSC 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Esso Australia Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with considering an application for compensation made by a victim under section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991. The application stemmed from a series of convictions against Esso Australia for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985, specifically sections 21 and 22. The victim, who suffered from psychiatric injury including post-traumatic stress disorder, grief, pain, and suffering, sought compensation for these injuries. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991, which allows for compensation to be ordered to a victim of a crime where a defendant has been convicted of an offence.

The court's reasoning focused on the provisions of section 85B and the relevant case law interpreting this section. It considered the nature and extent of the victim's injuries, the culpability of Esso Australia, and the applicability of compensation in cases involving corporate defendants. The court also examined the objectives of the Sentencing Act 1991, including the need for punishment and deterrence, while balancing these with the need to provide redress to victims of crime. Ultimately, the court found that the criteria for ordering compensation were met in this instance and made an order for compensation in favour of the victim.

The Federal Court determined that the victim was entitled to compensation for the psychiatric injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, grief, pain, and suffering experienced. The court emphasised the importance of holding corporate entities accountable and ensuring that victims receive appropriate compensation. In making its order, the court considered the culpability of Esso Australia, the severity of the offences, and the impact of the offences on the victim. The final orders included a determination that Esso Australia was liable to pay the specified amount of compensation to the victim, reflecting the court's consideration of all relevant factors under section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.