STRATTON CREEK PTY LTD -v- MORRISON [2005] WASC 84
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASC 84 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1018/2005 | 29 APRIL 2005 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 10/05/05 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Appeal against sentence allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STRATTON CREEK PTY LTD CRAIG ALEXANDER MORRISON |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against sentence and conviction Conviction and fine imposed on endorsed plea of guilty in absence of appellant Whether fine excessive Whether Chief Magistrate should have accepted plea of guilty Occupational safety and health Demolition work comprising the removal of asbestos cement roofing Failure to obtain licence for class 3 demolition work Removal of less than 200 square metres of asbestos cement roofing before work stopped Whether breach of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (WA) reg 3.117(3) |
Legislation: | Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 135 Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 (WA) Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 3.117(3) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 14 |
Case References: | Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 12 ALR 333 Garner v Galliene (1985) 9 ACLR 808 Green v Steineck, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950485; 14 September 1995 Harvey v Robinson [1999] WASCA 120 JAG Demolition Pty Ltd v Partridge [2002] WASCA 272 Lamb v Clews (1988) 10 MVR 465 Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 Lim v Bateman [2001] WASCA 307 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 50 Murphy v Morrison, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960089; 15 February 1996 Parkinson v Prout [2003] WASCA 320 Price v Davies [2001] WASCA 81 Rice v Henley (1914) 19 CLR 19 Rowlands v Caporn [2001] WASCA 66 Superfine Homes Pty Ltd v Shepherd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990088; 2 March 1999 Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 Abbott Laboratories v Corbridge Group Pty Ltd (2002) 52 IPR 432 John Nominees Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] WASCA 51 Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 206 ALR 422 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
CRAIG ALEXANDER MORRISON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS
Coram : MR S A HEATH CSM
File No : PE 5663 of 2005
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against sentence and conviction - Conviction and fine imposed on endorsed plea of guilty in absence of appellant - Whether fine excessive - Whether Chief Magistrate should have accepted plea of guilty
Occupational safety and health - Demolition work comprising the removal of asbestos cement roofing - Failure to obtain licence for class 3 demolition work - Removal of less than 200 square metres of asbestos cement roofing before…
Continue reading Stratton Creek Pty Ltd v Morrison
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stratton Creek Pty Ltd v Morrison [2005] WASC 84
- Case
- [2005] WASC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stratton Creek Pty Ltd (appellant) appealed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of the Court of Petty Sessions (Chief Magistrate). The appellant was convicted and fined for removing asbestos cement roofing from a building without a class 1 or class 3 demolition work licence. The appellant did not attend the hearing of the conviction and sentence. The appellant argued that the Chief Magistrate erred in not adjourning the matter to allow for the appellant to present its case and in imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal was heard on the basis of the material before the Chief Magistrate as well as further evidence submitted by the appellant and respondent. The court found that the Chief Magistrate erred in not adjourning the matter for the appellant to present its case and in imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. The conviction was dismissed and the appellant was re-sentenced to a fine of $1,500, with costs in the amount ordered by the Chief Magistrate.
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.