Inspector Gjaltema v Randwick City Council. Prosecution under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.Inspector Gjaltema v Randwick City Council. Prosecution under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 [2005] NSWIRComm 114

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session

CITATION: Inspector Gjaltema v Randwick City Council. Prosecution under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.Inspector Gjaltema v Randwick City Council. Prosecution under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 [2005] NSWIRComm 114

PROSECUTOR: Inspector Gjaltema PARTIES: DEFENDANTS: Randwick City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 4743 and 4744 of 2004

CORAM: Haylen J

Genner Constructions Pty Limited v The WorkCover Authority 2001 NSW IRC 267 CASES CITED: The Crown in the Right of State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) v Inspector Keenan (2001) 105 IR 181 at 194

HEARING DATES: 04/06/2005 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 04/06/2005

PROSECUTOR: Mr J Rodney, Solicitor SOLICITORS: Carroll & O'Dea LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

DEFENDANTS: Mr M Cahill of counsel SOLICITORS: Sparke Helmore

JUDGMENT:

- 11 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN COURT SESSION

CORAM: Haylen J 6 April 2005

Matter No IRC 4743 of 2004 04/4743 - INSPECTOR GJALTEMA v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL Prosecution under s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Matter No IRC 4744 of 2004 INSPECTOR GJALTEMA v RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL Prosecution under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT [2005] NSWIRComm 114 The Court has before it this morning two prosecutions; one brought pursuant to s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, and the second brought pursuant to s 8(2) of that Act. The defendant in each case is Randwick City Council and a plea of guilty has been entered to each charge. This morning I have heard evidence and submissions as to an appropriate penalty. In relation to the evidence, there was an agreed statement of facts, to which I will return shortly; a factual inspection report by a WorkCover inspector; a number of photographs taken by the WorkCover Authority; some photographs taken by the defendant; and also a prior convictions record which demonstrated that the defendant had no prior convictions. That material constituted the evidentiary case for the prosecutor. In relation to the defendant, a very extensive affidavit, with numerous annexures, was read, being the affidavit of Mr Frangoples, the director of City Services of the Council, and a person instructed by the defendant to speak on its behalf in relation to these proceedings. I will return to that document in due course.