skip navigation
Back

Prosecution Details

Offender Lisa Marie Campbell

Charges

Swipe to see more information
Charge Charge Number Offence Date Date Convicted Regulation Section Penalty Provision Penalty Imposed Date Sentenced
1 PE4123/11 22 January 2010 3rd October 2011 3A(1)(b)(i)(l) $1,000.00 3rd October 2011
2 PE4124/11 Between 22 Jan 2010 & 22 June 2010 3rd October 2011 3A(1)(b)(i)(l) $2,000.00 3rd October 2011
Description of Breach(es)

Charge 1 - Used abusive and insulting language to an Inspector appointed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, lawfully acting in the performance of a function conferred on him under the Act; contrary to sections 47(1)(a) and 54 of the Act.

Charge 2 - Contravened a requirement of an inspector made under section 43(1)(k) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 in that she failed to participate in an interview when required by an Inspector appointed under the Act; contrary to sections 47(1)(c) and 54 of the Act.

Background Details

As a consequence of complaints made to Worksafe in late 2008 and information from certain drivers, a Worksafe Inspector (the principal Inspector) commenced conducting enquiries into whether a business registered to the Accused, and ran by the accused with her partner, had complied with fatigue laws as outlined in Part 3 Division 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996.   That enquiry and investigation brought the principal Inspector into contact with the accused and her partner at different times throughout 2009. 

WorkSafe's investigation continued throughout 2009.  As a result of this investigation, the principal Inspector deemed it necessary to interview both the accused and her partner. 

Attempts for an interview were made in December 2009.  On 8 December 2009, the principal Inspector sent a letter by registered post to the accused at her residential (and registered business) address, inviting her to participate in a voluntary record of interview.  The principal Inspector also endeavoured to communicate with the accused and her partner that he wanted to interview them by attending at their home address.  As the Accused refused to take up the opportunity to voluntarily agree to be interviewed the principal Inspector determined that the appropriate course was to use his power under section 43(1)(k) of the Act to require an interview.  In order to advise the accused of this decision the principal Inspector decided to personally serve a letter advising of the requirement to provide an interview.

On the morning of 22 January 2010, in order to serve the letter advising of the decision to require an interview with the accused, the principal Inspector, with the assistance of another Worksafe Inspector, attended the residential address for the accused and her partner.  Neither the accused nor her partner were present.

The Inspectors then went to the registered business address for the accused for two businesses.  At this address the Inspectors located an individual who worked for the business and who lived on site.  The individual agreed to take copies of the two letters and provide them to the accused and her partner the next time he saw them. 

Later that day at approximately 4.00pm, the Inspectors located the accused at another registered business of which they had become aware earlier that day. At that time the accused was in the shop attending to a customer.  Shortly after the Inspectors entered the shop the letters were placed on the service counter of the shop.  The principal Inspector informed the accused that he was serving the letter on her and her partner.  The accused made it clear to the Inspectors that she did not want to speak to the Inspectors and demanded that both Inspectors leave the shop.  The principal Inspector, by way of explanation, told the accused he had a power to interview and that he required to interview her and her partner.  The Accused became abusive and swore repeatedly at the principal Inspector.

A security officer attended the store and made enquiries with the Inspectors who identified themselves and explained the purpose of their presence.  The security officer advised the accused that the Inspectors had the right to be present and he would not remove them from the store.

The accused made a telephone call at some point after the arrival of the Inspectors and then approached the principal Inspector whilst on her telephone and presented the phone to him.  The principal Inspector refused to take the call as he did not know where the call emanated from.  . 

Very shortly thereafter, whilst still present in the shop, the principal Inspector received a telephone call on his mobile from the same mobile number that he had received a call earlier in the day from the partner.  A conversation ensued that is not relevant to this prosecution. 

The Inspectors considered they had done all they could to serve the letters and also to verbally advise the accused of the requirement to participate in an interview so they decided to leave the store.  The letters for the accused and her partner were left in the store

From when the letter was served on 22 January 2010 until 21 June 2010, the accused has not made any arrangements with WorkSafe so that an interview may be conducted. 




Outcome Summary

Found guilty by Magistrate at trial

Court Magistrates Court of Western Australia - Perth
Costs $1500.00

Search the records of all successful prosecutions taken by WorkSafe under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 since 1st January 2005. Searching and indexing of this database is limited to convictions for offences against the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 and Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 committed on or after 1 January 2005, when the statutory offence and penalty regimes were significantly amended.

Offences committed prior to 1 January 2005, while of limited comparative relevance, can be accessed via the following link.