MURRAY v R; AMMCEM PTY LTD v R [2009] NSWDC 437

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: MURRAY v R; AMMCEM PTY LTD v R [2009] NSWDC 437

HEARING DATE(S): 9 June 2009 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 9 June 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: The appeals are dismissed and the orders of the magistrate are confirmed. Because there are two appeals being heard together, that order will be that Ms Murray pay the sum of $750 and Ammcen Pty Ltd also pay the sum of $750, being the prosecutor's costs of today's appeal

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Conviction appeal - Child care centre safety - Breach of Children's Services Regulations

LEGISLATION CITED: Children and Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1998

PARTIES: Andrea Murray v R Ammcem Pty Ltd v r

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/12/0514; 2009/12/0516

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent In Person - The Appellant

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: I have before me two appeals relating to the conduct of two child care centres. The reason there are two appeals is that the prosecutor brought proceedings against Andrea Murray and Ammcen Pty Limited in relation to the two child care centres. Ms Murray was the sole director of Ammcem and so to that extent there is some duplication of the matters before me. The appeals have been heard together.

2 Both Ms Murray and the company faced prosecution under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act and the Children's Services Regulations. They arose out of breaches of the Act and Regulations at two child care centres conducted by the two appellants. One of the child care centres was at St Ives and the other at Turramurra. The charges arise out of inspections carried out by staff in February 2008 where a number of breaches of the relevant regulations were discovered. They related generally to the safety of the children attending the day care centres. Threats to the children's safety arose from such things as there being an insufficient area for a safe fall zone. And also less clearly related to the safety, was the failure to have qualified staff on premises when there were children under the age of two present at the centre. The other threats to the safety to the children related to the cleanliness of the premises, and the plumbing at the premises. It is not necessary for me to go through each of the offences, beyond saying that the regulations were clearly designed to promote the welfare of the children attending the centre and breaches of the regulations were serious. At one stage the Magistrate expressed the preliminary view that some of the offences were of a technical nature, but after receiving submissions on the matter he withdrew from that point of view. I have to agree that none of the offences here could probably be described as technical. Each appellant was fined and costs were ordered.