Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1512..
(Question No 157)
Ms Dundas asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 May 2002:
(1) How many referrals has the DPP received from Workcover (or its predecessor) against people or companies engaged in the fireworks industry since 1 December 1999 to the present date.
(2) How many prosecutions have been launched by the DPP from referrals described above.
(3) Of those prosecutions launched by the DPP since 1 December 1999:
(a) How many have been completed; and
(b) What were the outcomes of each of these prosecutions;
(c) In how many matters have costs been awarded against the DPP, the Government or instrumentality statutory body of the ACT government.
(4) What is the total estimated cost of the matters described in question 3(c).
(5) How much money, since 1 December 1999 has the DPP spent on prosecutions against members of the ACT fireworks industry.
(6) When an award of costs is made against the ACT Government, what is the procedure utilised by the DPP in paying those costs.
Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
1. Since 1 December 1999 to date, Workcover has referred to the Office of the DPP 25 cases involving people or companies engaged in the fireworks industry.
2. As a practice, neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor his staff launch prosecutions following such referrals. Prosecutions are launched by the laying of an information by an officer of Workcover or a police officer or an officer of another appropriate agency. Thirty-four charges have been laid following the referrals mentioned in 1 above, thirty-three by an officer of Workcover and one by a police officer.
3.Of the prosecutions against members of the fireworks industry
(a) twenty four have been completed;
(b) one resulted in a finding of guilty; in thirteen cases the information was withdrawn and no evidence offered; in ten cases the court dismissed the prosecution; and
(c) in eleven cases, involving twenty-three charges, costs were ordered to be paid by the informant who, in the ordinary course, would be indemnified by the agency.