skip navigation

Prosecution Details

Offender Danny Reinhold
Trading Name Mechanic on the Move


Swipe to see more information
Charge Charge Number Offence Date Date Convicted Regulation Section Penalty Provision Penalty Imposed Date Sentenced
1 FR7948/07 17 August 2006 16th October 2007 3A(1)(b)(i)(l) $1,000.00 16th October 2007
Description of Breach(es)

Used any threat or any abusive or insulting language to an inspector lawfully acting in the performance of a function conferred on an inspector under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984; contrary to sections 47(1)(ba) and 54 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Background Details

At the time of the offence the accused was the owner and proprietor of an automotive mobile mechanical repair business operating under the registered business name "Mechanic on the Move". Much of the mechanical repairs were conducted at the premises of third-party customers, however, the accused also operated out of a mechanical workshop located at 83 Quill Way, Henderson ("the Workplace").

On 9 June 2006 a WorkSafe WA Inspector attended the Workplace for purposes related to the performance of his functions as an inspector appointed under the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. The Inspector conducted an inspection of the Workplace and issued five improvement notices to the accused ("the Notices"). All the Notices specified a compliance date of 7 July 2006. During the course of the Inspector's visit, the accused was unreceptive to the Inspector's endeavours to explain to him the purpose of his presence there. Further, it was apparent that the accused was resentful of the Inspector's presence as the accused felt that WorkSafe was purporting to interfere in the running of his business.

WorkSafe received a compliance slip in respect of one of the Notices.  Following several reminder letters sent to the accused, which were returned marked "Return to Sender", two Inspectors attended the Workplace on 17 August 2006 to ascertain whether the accused was still operating his business and, if so, whether the outstanding Notices had been complied with. The investigating Inspector introduced himself to the accused and explained that he came to the Workplace to determine whether the accused had complied with the outstanding Notices. The accused made it clear that he did not welcome the Inspectors' visit. The accused became more agitated and started to shout at the Inspectors accusing them of victimisation. The investigating Inspector again explained the reason for his presence there and that he and the accompanying Inspector would continue carrying out their inspection of the Workplace for that purpose.

As the inspection continued, the accused became increasingly agitated and his manner became increasingly abusive in response to a question from the investigating Inspector as to why he had not taken any steps to address the matters set out in the Notices. It became apparent to the two Inspectors that the several outstanding Notices had not been complied with. The investigating Inspector then explained to the accused that because of his apparent failure to comply with the Notices and his reluctance to co-operate with the Inspectors it would be necessary to arrange a formal interview in the near future to afford the accused the opportunity to explain his non-compliance.

At this point the accused became extremely animated and started to wave his arms about.  He also stepped closer to the investigating Inspector on several occasions and shouted directly into his face, vigorously swinging his arms about while doing so. His use of abusive language intensified and he yelled at the Inspector using a number of highly inappropriate phrases.

The investigating Inspector felt that while already extremely aggressive, the accused's behaviour might further degenerate and so he and the accompanying Inspector decided to leave the Workplace.

In leaving, the investigating Inspector informed the accused that a letter requesting an interview with the accused concerning his non-compliance with the Notices would be sent. The accused responded with further abusive language.

Outcome Summary

Pleaded Guilty

Court Fremantle
Costs $1,194.50

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.