Prosecution Details

[1] Between the 10th day of August 1998 and the 4th day of September 1998 at Murray Street West Perth, Furama Pty Ltd, being a person to whom improvement notice No. 104205 was issued by an inspector duly appointed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, failed to comply with the improvement notice within the time specified therein.

[2] Between the 10th day of August 1998 and the 4th day of September 1998 at Murray Street West Perth, Furama Pty Ltd, being a person to whom improvement notice No. 104206 was issued by an inspector duly appointed under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, failed to comply with the improvement notice within the time specified therein.

A departmental inspector inspected the defendant's plant in Murray Street, West Perth on 16 July 1998. It was found that some fire extinguishers had markings indicating a recent test. Others in the lift motor room did not have any recent markings. The lift car did not have any communication facilities installed. Two improvement notices were issued to the defendant to attend to these matters. Two notices had previously been given to the defendant in December 1997 regarding the same issues.

When a response to the two re-issued improvement notices and reminder letters had not been received by 4 September 1998, the inspector re-visited the premises of that were the subject of the notices. It was found that the situation had not changed since the previous visit on 16 July 1998.

Some fire extinguishers still had no evidence of a recent test and the lift car that was the subject of improvement notice number 104206 still did not have communication facilities.

On the 11 November 1999 the defendant, who made no appearance, was found guilty and fined $5,000. The defendant had sent a letter to the court requesting an adjournment to early 2000. His Worship Mr S Heath SM refused the request. On the 23 November 1999 the defendant made an application for a rehearing under section 136A of the Justices Act. The application was dismissed by His Worship Mr Malley SM, stating that the defendant's only option was to appeal the decision to refuse the adjournment application.

The defendant made no plea and the hearing proceeded by exparte. The penalty was imposed under section 54(b).

convicted