Prosecution Details

Charge 1 - Used threats 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.

As a consequence of a complaint 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's partner, and ran by the accused with his 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 his 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 his 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 his residential address (and the registered business), inviting him to participate in a voluntary record of interview.  The principal Inspector also endeavoured to communicate with the accused and his 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 his partner.  Neither the accused nor his partner were present.

After no one answered the door at the residential address, the principal Inspector sent a text message to the accused's mobile after attempting to contact him by phone.  Sometime later, the principal Inspector spoke on the telephone with the accused and the accused advised him that he was up north on a fishing trip.  The Inspector informed the accused that he had served papers and required him for an interview upon his return to Perth. 

The Inspectors then went to the registered business address.  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 his partner the next time he saw them. 

Later that day the Inspectors located the accused's partner at another registered business of which they had become aware earlier that day.  A conversation ensued that is not relevant to this prosecution.  The letters for the accused and his partner were placed on the store counter.

The accused's partner 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 and 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 accused.  The principal Inspector also recognised the voice as that of the accused. 

The accused made remarks on the phone to the principal Inspector, initially to the effect that the principal Inspector had gone to far and he was going to hurt him.  The principal Inspector then switched his phone to speaker so that those present could also hear the threats being made by the accused.  The accused then said remarks to the effect that he was going to go to the Worksafe Office and its security better be up to scratch as it was going to be needed to protect him.

The Inspectors left the store shortly after the telephone call ended.   The letters for the accused and his 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. 

Indeed, the accused, identifying himself only as "Troy", contacted WorkSafe on 25 January 2010 and spoke to the duty Inspector, Claire Bingham, stating that

1. Inspectors had been to his wife's clothing boutique on 22 January 2010;
2. he had received a text message that he had been served with papers; and
3. he was not happy and was contemplating getting a restraining order against the Inspector as well as making a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Found guilty by Magistrate at trial