The Chain of Responsibility (CoR) imposes 'secondary liability' as a result of 'primary liability'. In terms of speeding offences, the primary liability is that of the speeding truck driver and the secondary liability is imposed on those responsible for the acts of the driver.
This secondary liability is almost a strict liability, but subject to the reasonable steps defence under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL). The crucial question is: What is considered 'reasonable'?
In Dranmore Pty Ltd & Ors v Bimson (2014), various companies in the Dranmore Group, as well as two directors, were charged with 237 speeding offences.
Dranmore argued that the prosecutor had an obligation to identify the reasonable steps that Dranmore should have taken, relying on the legal principle that a person charged is entitled to know all elements of the alleged offence, and that in CoR cases the failure to take all reasonable steps is an element of the offence.
Justice Campbell disagreed. He followed judgements in another recent CoR case, which held that it was not the job of the prosecutor to spell out what reasonable steps had not been taken.
This makes sense. What is reasonable varies from case to case, depending on all of the circumstances faced by each person charged and the capacity they are charged with. It will depend on the nature of the business and the resources at a defendant's disposal as well as their degree of sophistication.
This means you need to audit and analyse your business – ask yourself: 'What do we need to do to comply with our obligations?'
This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.
