REILLY -v- TOBIASSEN [2008] WASC 92
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 92 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1122/2005 | 25 FEBRUARY 2008 | |
| Coram: | EM HEENAN J | 16/05/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Respondent fined | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER JOHN PATRICK REILLY SVEIN GERHARD TOBIASSEN |
Catchwords: | Occupational health and safety Occupational Health and Safety Act (WA) Penalties on conviction Several convictions for act or omission arising out of same circumstances Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) Penalties |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA) Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA) Occupational Safety and Health (Regulations) 1996 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) |
Case References: | A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97 Connolly v Meagher [1906] HCA 20; (1906) 3 CLR 682 Go-Crete Pty Ltd v Innes [2002] WASCA 240 Harvey v Hull (No 2) [1902] St R Qd 53 Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435 Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd v Briggs [2002] WASCA 53 Industrial Galvinisers Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Industrial Galvinisers v Shepherd [1999] WASCA 282 Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572 Kiripatea v The Queen [1991] 2 Qd R 686 McBride v The Queen [1966] HCA 22; (1966) 115 CLR 44 Morrison v Competitive Food Ltd t/as Hungry Jack's (Unreported, WASC, Library No 9118, 25 October 1991) Morrison v Winton (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960698, 12 December 1996) Palynolab Resources Pty Ltd v Morrison (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960477, 22 August 1996) Phillips v Carbone (No 2) (1992) 10 WAR 169 R v Australian Char Pty Ltd (1995) 79 A Crim R 427 Shepherd v Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd [2001] WASCA 413 Superfine Homes Pty Ltd v Shepherd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 990088, 15 February 1999) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
SVEIN GERHARD TOBIASSEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE P G MALONE
File No : PE 49377 of 2003, PE 49378 of 2003, PE 49379 of 2003, PE 49380 of 2003, PE 49381 of 2003
Catchwords:
Occupational health and safety - Occupational Health and Safety Act (WA) - Penalties on conviction - Several convictions for act or omission arising out of same circumstances - Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) - Penalties
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA)
Occupational Safety and Health Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA)
Occupational Safety and Health (Regulations) 1996 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Result:
Respondent fined
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr T C Russell
Respondent : Mr M H…
Continue reading Reilly v Tobiassen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Reilly v Tobiassen [2008] WASC 92
- Case
- [2008] WASC 92
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Reilly v Tobiassen, the court addressed a dispute arising under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, concerning the imposition of fines on a respondent for multiple convictions related to the same incident. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Reilly, brought the matter before the court seeking enforcement of penalties against Tobiassen, who had been found guilty of multiple offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Tobiassen had been convicted for his role in a workplace incident that resulted in serious injuries.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate penalty to be imposed on Tobiassen for several convictions that stemmed from the same incident. The court had to consider whether it was appropriate to impose separate penalties for each offence or whether the penalties should be cumulative. The court also needed to determine whether the sentences should reflect the specific nature of each offence or if they should be consolidated due to their arising from the same circumstances.
The court found that the respondent, Tobiassen, should be fined for each offence, reflecting the seriousness of the breach of occupational health and safety laws. The court noted that while the offences arose from the same incident, they were distinct in nature and required separate consideration. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing occupational health and safety laws to deter similar breaches in the future. Ultimately, the court decided that the penalties should not be cumulative but rather assessed individually to appropriately reflect the gravity of each offence. The court imposed a fine on Tobiassen, commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.
The court ordered that Tobiassen be fined for each offence, with the total penalty reflecting the combined seriousness of the breaches. The specific amounts were not detailed in the summary, but the court's decision underscored the need for strict enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations to protect workers and promote workplace safety.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate penalty to be imposed on Tobiassen for several convictions that stemmed from the same incident. The court had to consider whether it was appropriate to impose separate penalties for each offence or whether the penalties should be cumulative. The court also needed to determine whether the sentences should reflect the specific nature of each offence or if they should be consolidated due to their arising from the same circumstances.
The court found that the respondent, Tobiassen, should be fined for each offence, reflecting the seriousness of the breach of occupational health and safety laws. The court noted that while the offences arose from the same incident, they were distinct in nature and required separate consideration. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing occupational health and safety laws to deter similar breaches in the future. Ultimately, the court decided that the penalties should not be cumulative but rather assessed individually to appropriately reflect the gravity of each offence. The court imposed a fine on Tobiassen, commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.
The court ordered that Tobiassen be fined for each offence, with the total penalty reflecting the combined seriousness of the breaches. The specific amounts were not detailed in the summary, but the court's decision underscored the need for strict enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations to protect workers and promote workplace safety.
Orders
Orders of the court
Respondent fined
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.