(a) an offence under section 127(3) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or section 48H(1)(b) or (g); or
(b) any other offence arising out of the same circumstances; or
(c) any other offence in respect of which the evidence obtained as a result of the assessment of drug impairment has probative value.
(2) If a rail safety worker undergoes an assessment of drug impairment that has been carried out on the rail safety worker under sections 48O and 48P and—
(a) the rail safety worker has not been charged with a relevant offence at the end of the period of 12 months after the undergoing of the assessment of drug impairment; or
(b) the rail safety worker has been so charged but the charge is not proceeded with, the prosecution for the offence is discontinued or the rail safety worker is not found guilty of the offence, whether on appeal or otherwise, before the end of that period—
the Chief Commissioner of Police must, subject to subsection (4), destroy, or cause to be destroyed, at the time specified in subsection (3) any video-recording made of the assessment and any related material and information.
(3) A video-recording and any related material and information referred to in subsection (2) must be destroyed—
(a) in a case to which subsection (2)(a) applies, immediately after that period of 12 months; or
(b) in a case to which subsection (2)(b) applies—
(i) within one month after the conclusion of the proceeding and the end of any appeal period; or
(ii) if the proceeding has been adjourned under section 75 of the Sentencing Act 1991, within one month after dismissal under that section.
(4) A police officer may, before the end of a period referred to in subsection (3)(b), apply without notice to the Magistrates' Court for an order extending that period and, if the Court makes such an order, the reference to the period in subsection (3) is a reference to that period as so extended.
(5) If the Magistrates' Court makes an order under subsection (4), it must give reasons for its decision and cause a copy of the order to be served on the rail safety worker on whom the assessment of drug impairment was carried out.
(6) If a video-recording or related material and information is required to be destroyed in accordance with this section, the Chief Commissioner of Police must, if the rail safety worker on whom the assessment was carried out so requests, within 14 days after receiving the request, notify that worker in writing whether the destruction has occurred.
(7) A person who knowingly—
(a) fails to destroy; or
(b) uses, or causes or permits to be used—
a video-recording or related material and information required by this section to be destroyed is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine of not more than 120 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months.
(8) A person who at any time uses, or causes or permits to be used, or otherwise disseminates information derived from any video-recording or related material and information required by this section to be destroyed except in good faith for the purposes of a relevant offence is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine of not more than 120 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months.
S. 48ZA inserted by No. 41/2019 s. 17.
48ZA Blood samples to be taken in certain cases
doctor means a registered medical practitioner and includes a police surgeon.
(2) If a rail safety worker enters or is brought to a place for examination or treatment in consequence of a notifiable occurrence (whether within Victoria or not), the worker must allow a doctor or approved health professional to take from the worker at that place a sample of the worker's blood for analysis.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) in the opinion of the doctor or approved health professional first responsible for the examination or treatment of the rail safety worker the taking of a blood sample from the worker would be prejudicial to the worker's proper care and treatment; or
(b) the doctor or approved health professional first responsible for the examination or treatment of the rail safety worker believed on reasonable grounds that the worker was not a rail safety worker.
(4) A rail safety worker to whom subsection (2) applies and who is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate must be taken to allow the taking of a sample of the worker's blood by a doctor or approved health professional at a place which the worker enters or to which the worker is brought for examination or treatment.
(5) If a sample of a rail safety worker's blood is taken in accordance with this section, evidence of the taking of it, the analysis of it or the results of the analysis must not be used in evidence in any legal proceeding except—
(a) for the purposes of section 48ZB; or
(b) for the purposes of the Transport Accident Act 1986—
but may be given—
(c) to the Transport Accident Commission under the Transport Accident Act 1986 and, for the purposes of applications relating to that Act, to VCAT; and
(d) to the Department for the purposes of accident research.
(6) A rail safety worker must not hinder or obstruct a doctor or approved health professional attempting to take a sample of the blood of any other person in accordance with this section.
(7) No action lies against a doctor or approved health professional in respect of anything properly and necessarily done by the doctor or approved health professional in the course of taking any sample of blood which the doctor or approved health professional believes on reasonable grounds was required or allowed to be taken from a rail safety worker under this section.
Division 4—Evidentiary provisions
S. 48ZB inserted by No. 41/2019 s. 17.
48ZB Evidentiary provisions—blood tests
approved analyst means a person who by virtue of subsection (2) is to be taken to be a properly qualified analyst for the purposes of this section;
approved expert means a person who by virtue of subsection (3) is to be taken to be a properly qualified expert for the purposes of this section;
approved laboratory means an approved laboratory within the meaning of section 57 of the Road Safety Act 1986;
properly qualified analyst means—
(a) an approved analyst; or
(b) a person who carries out an analysis in an approved laboratory; or
(c) a person who is considered by the court to have scientific qualifications, training and experience that qualifies the person to carry out the analysis and to express an opinion as to the facts and matters contained in a certificate under subsection (6) or (7), as the case requires;
properly qualified expert means—
(a) an approved expert; or
(b) a person who is considered by the court to have scientific qualifications, training and experience that qualifies the person to express an opinion as to the facts and matters contained in a certificate under subsection (8).
(2) A person who is an approved analyst within the meaning of section 57 of the Road Safety Act 1986 is to be taken to be a properly qualified analyst for the purposes of this section.
(3) A person who is an approved expert within the meaning of section 57 of the Road Safety Act 1986 is to be taken to be a properly qualified expert for the purposes of this section.
(4) If—
(a) the question whether a rail safety worker was or was not at any time under the influence of alcohol or any other drug; or
(b) the presence of alcohol or any other drug, or the concentration of alcohol in the blood of a rail safety worker at any time; or
(c) a finding on the analysis of a blood sample of a rail safety worker—
is relevant on a hearing for an offence against section 128 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or section 48H, or in any inquest or investigation held by a coroner then, without affecting the admissibility of any evidence which might be given apart from the provisions of this section, evidence may be given of the taking, within 3 hours after the rail safety worker carried out rail safety work, of a sample of blood from the worker by a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional, of the analysis of that sample of blood by a properly qualified analyst within 12 months after it was taken, of the presence of alcohol and, if alcohol is present, of the concentration of alcohol expressed in grams per 100 millilitres of blood found by that analyst to be present in that sample of blood at the time of analysis and, if a drug is present, evidence may be given by a properly qualified expert of the usual effect of that drug on behaviour when consumed or used (including its effect on a person's ability to carry out rail safety work properly).
(5) A certificate containing the prescribed particulars purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(6) A certificate, containing the prescribed particulars, as to the concentration of alcohol expressed in grams per 100 millilitres of blood found in any sample of blood—
(b) stating that the sample of blood was analysed in an approved laboratory—
is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(7) A certificate, containing the prescribed particulars, as to the presence in any sample of blood of a substance that is, or is capable of being, a prescribed drug for the purposes of this Part—
(b) stating that the sample of blood was analysed in an approved laboratory—
is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(8) A certificate containing the prescribed particulars purporting to be signed by an approved expert as to the usual effect of a specified substance or substances on behaviour when consumed or used (including its effect on a rail safety worker's ability to carry out rail safety work properly) is admissible in evidence in any proceedings referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(9) A certificate given under this section must not be tendered in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) without the consent of the accused unless a copy of the certificate is proved to have been served on the accused more than 10 days before the day on which the certificate is tendered in evidence.
(10) A copy of a certificate given under this section may be served on the accused by—
(a) delivering it to the accused personally; or
(b) leaving it for the accused at the accused's last or most usual place of residence or of business with a person who apparently resides or works there and who apparently is not less than 16 years of age.
(11) An affidavit or statutory declaration by a person who has served a copy of the certificate on the accused is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) and, as to the service of the copy, is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts and matters deposed to in the affidavit or stated in the statutory declaration.
(12) An accused who has been served with a copy of a certificate given under this section may, with the leave of the court and not otherwise, require the person who has given the certificate or any other person employed, or engaged to provide services at, the place at which the sample of blood was taken to attend at all subsequent proceedings for cross-examination and that person must attend accordingly.
(13) The court must not grant leave under subsection (12) unless it is satisfied—
(a) that the informant has been given at least 7 days' notice of the hearing of the application for leave and has been given an opportunity to make a submission to the court; and
(b) that—
(i) there is a reasonable possibility that the blood referred to in a certificate given by an analyst under subsection (6) or (7) was not that of the accused; or
(ii) there is a reasonable possibility that the blood referred to in a certificate given by a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional had become contaminated in such a way that the blood alcohol concentration found on analysis was higher than it would have been had the blood not been contaminated in that way; or
(iii) there is a reasonable possibility that the blood referred to in a certificate given by a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional had become contaminated in such a way that a drug found on analysis would not have been found had the blood not been contaminated in that way; or
(iv) for some other reason the giving of evidence by the person who gave the certificate or any other person employed, or engaged to provide services at, the place at which the sample of blood was taken would materially assist the court to ascertain relevant facts.
(14) An accused who has been served with a copy of a certificate given under this section may not require the person who has given the certificate or any other person employed, or engaged to provide services at, the place at which the sample of blood was taken, to attend the court on the hearing of an application for leave under subsection (12).
(15) If a registered medical practitioner or an approved health professional is requested to make an examination or to collect a sample of blood for the purposes of this section and if the rail safety worker to be examined or from whom a sample of blood is to be collected has expressed consent to that examination or collection, no action lies against the registered medical practitioner or approved health professional who acts in accordance with that consent even if it subsequently appears that the worker was in fact incapable by reason of the worker's mental condition from effectively giving consent to the examination or collection.
(16) Except as provided in sections 48X and 48ZA, a blood sample must not be taken and evidence of the result of an analysis of a blood sample must not be tendered unless the rail safety worker from whom the blood has been collected has expressed consent to the collection of the blood and the onus of proving that expression of consent is on the prosecution.
(17) The mere failure or refusal of a rail safety worker to express consent must not be used in evidence against the worker or referred to in any way against the worker's interests in any proceeding.
(18) A certificate purporting to be signed by a person—
(a) who took a blood sample; or
(b) who analysed a blood sample—
in accordance with the provisions of an Act of another State or a Territory that substantially correspond to section 48ZA of this Act and in accordance with any regulations made under the corresponding Act is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(19) Subsections (9), (10), (11) and (12) apply in respect of a certificate referred to in subsection (18) as if the certificate was given under this section.
S. 48ZC inserted by No. 41/2019 s. 17.
48ZC Evidentiary provisions—oral fluid samples
approved analyst means a person who by virtue of subsection (2) is to be taken to be a properly qualified analyst for the purposes of this section;
approved expert means a person who by virtue of subsection (3) is to be taken to be a properly qualified expert for the purposes of this section;
approved laboratory means an approved laboratory within the meaning of section 57B of the Road Safety Act 1986;
properly qualified analyst means—
(a) an approved analyst; or
(b) a person who carries out an analysis in an approved laboratory; or
(c) a person who is considered by the court to have scientific qualifications, training and experience that qualifies the person to carry out the analysis and to express an opinion as to the facts and matters contained in a certificate under subsection (6);
properly qualified expert means—
(a) an approved expert; or
(b) a person who is considered by the court to have scientific qualifications, training and experience that qualifies the person to express an opinion as to the facts and matters contained in a certificate under subsection (7).
(2) A person who is an approved analyst within the meaning of section 57B of the Road Safety Act 1986 is to be taken to be a properly qualified analyst for the purposes of this section.
(3) A person who is an approved expert within the meaning of section 57A of the Road Safety Act 1986 is to be taken to be a properly qualified expert for the purposes of this section.
(4) If a question as to the presence of a drug in the body of a rail safety worker at any time is relevant in a hearing for an offence against section 128 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or section 48H then, without affecting the admissibility of any evidence which might be given apart from the provisions of this section, evidence may be given—
(a) of the furnishing by that rail safety worker, within 3 hours after that rail safety worker carried out rail safety work, of a sample of oral fluid;
(b) of the analysis of that sample of oral fluid by a properly qualified analyst within 12 months after it was taken;
(c) of the presence of a drug in that sample of oral fluid at the time of analysis;
(d) by a properly qualified expert of the usual effect of that drug on behaviour when consumed or used (including its effect on a rail safety worker's ability to carry out rail safety work properly).
(5) A certificate containing the prescribed particulars purporting to be signed by the person who carried out the procedure in the course of which the sample was provided is admissible in evidence in any hearing referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(6) A certificate, containing the prescribed particulars, as to the presence in any sample of oral fluid of a substance that is, or is capable of being, a prescribed drug for the purposes of Division 9 of Part 3 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) and this Part—
(b) stating that the sample of oral fluid was analysed in an approved laboratory—
is admissible in evidence in any hearing referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(7) A certificate containing the prescribed particulars purporting to be signed by an approved expert as to the usual effect of a specified substance or substances on behaviour when consumed or used (including its effect on a rail safety worker's ability to carry out rail safety work properly) is admissible in evidence in any hearing referred to in subsection (4) and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts and matters contained in it.
(8) A certificate given under this section must not be tendered in evidence at a hearing referred to in subsection (4) without the consent of the accused unless a copy of the certificate is proved to have been personally served on the accused more than 10 days before the day on which the certificate is tendered in evidence.
(9) An affidavit or statutory declaration by the person who has personally served a copy of the certificate on the accused is admissible in evidence at a hearing referred to in subsection (4) and, as to the service of the copy, is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts and matters deposed to in the affidavit or stated in the statutory declaration.
(10) An accused who has been served with a copy of a certificate given under this section may, with the leave of the court and not otherwise, require the person who has given the certificate or any person employed, or engaged to provide services at, the place at which the sample of oral fluid was furnished, to attend at all subsequent proceedings for cross-examination and that person must attend accordingly.
(11) The court must not grant leave under subsection (10) unless it is satisfied—
(a) that the informant has been given at least 7 days' notice of the hearing of the application for leave and has been given an opportunity to make a submission to the court; and
(b) that—
(i) there is a reasonable possibility that the oral fluid referred to in a certificate given by an analyst under subsection (6) was not that of the accused; or
(ii) there is a reasonable possibility that the oral fluid referred to in a certificate given under subsection (5) had become contaminated in such a way that a drug found on analysis would not have been found had the oral fluid not been contaminated in that way; or
(iii) for some other reason the giving of evidence by the person who gave the certificate would materially assist the court to ascertain relevant facts.
(12) An accused who has been served with a copy of a certificate given under this section may not require the person who has given the certificate or any person employed, or engaged to provide services at, the place at which the sample of oral fluid was furnished, to attend the court on the hearing of an application for leave under subsection (10).
S. 48ZD inserted by No. 41/2019 s. 17.
48ZD Evidentiary provisions—breath tests
(1) If—
(a) the question whether a rail safety worker was or was not at any time under the influence of alcohol; or
(b) the presence, or the concentration, of alcohol in the breath of a rail safety worker at any time; or
(c) a result of a breath analysis of a rail safety worker—
is relevant on a hearing for an offence against section 128 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or section 48H then, without affecting the admissibility of any evidence which might be given apart from the provisions of this section, evidence may be given of the concentration of alcohol indicated to be present in the breath of that person by a breath analysing instrument operated by a person authorised to do so by the Chief Commissioner of Police under section 48M and the concentration of alcohol so indicated is, subject to compliance with section 48M(6), evidence of the concentration of alcohol present in the breath of that person at the time that person's breath is analysed by the instrument.
(2) A document purporting to be a certificate containing the prescribed particulars produced by a breath analysing instrument of the concentration of alcohol indicated by the analysis to be present in the breath of a person and purporting to be signed by the person who operated the instrument is admissible in evidence in a proceeding referred to in subsection (1) and, subject to subsection (8), is conclusive proof of—
(a) the facts and matters contained in it; and
(b) the fact that the instrument used was a breath analysing instrument; and
(c) the fact that the person who operated the instrument was authorised to do so by the Chief Commissioner of Police under section 48M; and
(d) the fact that all relevant regulations relating to the operation of the instrument were complied with; and
(e) the fact that the instrument was in proper working order and properly operated; and
(f) the fact that the certificate is identical in its terms to another certificate produced by the instrument in respect of the sample of breath and that it was signed by the person who operated the breath analysing instrument and given to the accused person as soon as practicable after the sample of breath was analysed—
unless the accused person gives notice in writing to the informant not less than 28 days before the hearing, or any shorter period ordered by the court or agreed to by the informant, that the accused person requires the person giving the certificate to be called as a witness or that the accused person intends to adduce evidence in rebuttal of any such fact or matter.
(3) A certificate referred to in subsection (2) does not cease to be admissible in evidence or to be conclusive proof of the facts and matters referred to in that subsection only because of the fact that it refers to the Road Safety Act 1986 and not to the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or the Rail Safety National Law Application Act 2013 and the reference to the Road Safety Act 1986 in that certificate and in each other certificate produced by the breath analysing instrument in respect of the sample of breath must be construed for all purposes as a reference to the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or the Rail Safety National Law Application Act 2013 (as the case requires).
(4) A notice under subsection (2) must specify any fact or matter with which issue is taken and indicate the nature of any expert evidence which the accused person intends to have adduced at the hearing.
(5) The accused person may not, except with the leave of the court, introduce expert evidence at the hearing if the nature of that evidence was not indicated in a notice under subsection (2).
(6) If an accused person gives notice to the informant in accordance with subsection (2) that the accused person requires the person giving a certificate to be called as a witness and the court is satisfied that that person—
(a) is dead; or
(b) is unfit by reason of the person's bodily or mental condition to testify as a witness; or
(c) has ceased to be a police officer or is out of Victoria and it is not reasonably practicable to secure the person's attendance; or
(d) cannot with reasonable diligence be found—
the court must order that subsection (2) has effect as if the notice had not been given.
(7) A certificate referred to in subsection (2) remains admissible in evidence even if the accused person gives a notice under that subsection but, in that event, the certificate ceases to be conclusive proof of the facts and matters referred to in that subsection.
(8) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the informant adducing evidence to explain any fact or matter contained in a certificate referred to in subsection (2) and, if the informant does so, the certificate remains admissible in evidence but ceases to be conclusive proof of that fact or matter only.
(9) In any proceeding under the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) or this Act—
(a) the statement of any person that on a particular date the person was authorised by the Chief Commissioner of Police under section 48M(7) to operate breath analysing instruments; or
(b) a certificate purporting to be signed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that a person named in it is authorised by the Chief Commissioner of Police under section 48M(7) to operate breath analysing instruments—
is admissible in evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the authority of that person.
(10) Evidence by a person authorised to operate a breath analysing instrument under section 48M—
(a) that an apparatus used by the person on any occasion under that section was a breath analysing instrument;
(b) that the breath analysing instrument was on that occasion in proper working order and properly operated by that person;
(c) that, in relation to the breath analysing instrument, all regulations with respect to breath analysing instruments were complied with—
is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of those facts.
(11) The statement on oath of a person authorised to operate a breath analysing instrument under section 48M when called as a witness that any apparatus used by the person on any occasion under section 48M had written, inscribed or impressed on some portion of it or on a plate attached to it the expressions—
(a) "Alcotest 7110" and "3530791"; or
(b) "Alcotest 9510AUS" and "8320869"—
whether with or without other expressions or abbreviations of expressions, commas, full stops, hyphens or other punctuation marks and whether or not all or any of the numbers are boxed in is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the apparatus is a breath analysing instrument.
Division 5—Other matters
S. 48ZE inserted by No. 41/2019 s. 17.
48ZE Approvals
(1) An authority given under or for the purposes of section 48M, 48P or 48R by the Chief Commissioner of Police may be revoked at any time in the manner in which it was given and on revocation ceases to have any effect.
(2) If it is provided by or under this Part that the Minister or the Chief Commissioner of Police or any other person may approve of any type or kind of apparatus or equipment—
(a) the approval must be given by notice published in the Government Gazette; and
(b) any withdrawal of approval must be made by notice published in the Government Gazette.
Part 5—Miscellaneous
Division 1—Director and officer criminal liability
49 Criminal liability of officers of bodies corporate—failure to exercise due diligence
(1) If a body corporate commits an offence against a provision specified in subsection (2), an officer of the body corporate also commits an offence against the provision if the officer failed to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by the body corporate.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following provisions are specified—
(a) section 58(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 52(1) of that Law;
(b) section 58(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(1) of that Law;
(c) section 58(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(3) of that Law;
(d) section 58(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 54 of that Law;
(e) section 58(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 56(1) of that Law;
(f) section 59 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 52(1) of that Law;
(g) section 59 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(1) of that Law;
(h) section 59 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(3) of that Law;
(i) section 59 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 54 of that Law;
(j) section 59 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 56(1) of that Law;
(k) section 60 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 52(1) of that Law;
(l) section 60 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(1) of that Law;
(m) section 60 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 53(3) of that Law;
(n) section 60 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 54 of that Law;
(o) section 60 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria) constituted by a failure to comply with section 56(1) of that Law;
(p) section 62(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(q) section 66(3) and (4) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(r) section 78 of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(s) section 83(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(t) section 98(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(u) section 99(1) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(v) section 101(1) and (2) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(w) section 110(6) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(x) section 111(1) and (2) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(y) section 121(1) and (4) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(z) section 122(3) and (4) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria);
(za) section 199(4) and (6) of the Rail Safety National Law (Victoria).
(3) In determining whether an officer of a body corporate failed to exercise due diligence, a court may have regard to—
(a) what the officer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the commission of the offence by the body corporate; and
(b) whether or not the officer was in a position to influence the body corporate in relation to the commission of the offence by the body corporate; and
(c) what steps the officer took, or could reasonably have taken, to prevent the commission of the offence by the body corporate; and
(d) any other relevant matter.
(4) Without limiting any other defence available to the officer, an officer of a body corporate may rely on a defence that would be available to the body corporate if it were charged with the offence with which the officer is charged and, in doing so, the officer bears the same burden of proof that the body corporate would bear.
(5) An officer of a body corporate may commit an offence against a provision specified in subsection (2) whether or not the body corporate has been prosecuted for, or found guilty of, an offence against that provision.