Inspector Spence v Gauci & Stephensons Cranes Pty Ltd [2011] NSWIRComm 79

Inspector Spence v Gauci & Stephensons Cranes Pty Ltd [2011] NSWIRComm 79

The offences were objectively serious because Stephensons used a mobile hydraulic crane for an inherently dangerous lift of a heavy load over powerlines over a distance of about 30 metres, failed to ensure accurate load and configuration assessment, failed to provide a suitable crane, failed to ensure the automatic safety device was properly calibrated, and exposed employees and occupants to risks from tipping, falling debris and electric shock. Although the defendants' early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition, remedial measures and other subjective factors mitigated penalty, general and specific deterrence remained important, particularly in light of Stephensons' prior conviction....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution for Offences Against S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With Director/manager Liability Alleged Under S 26 / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Each defendant found guilty of each offence, convicted, and penalised; moiety and costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['breach of Employer Duties' 'liability of Directors and Managers' 'mobile Crane Operation' 'powerline Risk' 'guilty Pleas' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'moiety' 'costs']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['breach of Employer Duties' 'liability of Directors and Managers' 'mobile Crane Operation' 'powerline Risk' 'guilty Pleas' 'objective Seriousness' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'moiety' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution for Offences Against S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With Director/manager Liability Alleged Under S 26 / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalties should be imposed on Stephensons Cranes Pty Ltd for breaches of s 8(1) and s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 arising from the crane incident.' 'What penalties should be imposed on Stephen John Gauci under s 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 for the same contraventions.' 'How the objective seriousness of the offences, deterrence, mitigating factors, prior conviction, and the principle of totality should affect penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were objectively serious because Stephensons used a mobile hydraulic crane for an inherently dangerous lift of a heavy load over powerlines over a distance of about 30 metres, failed to ensure accurate load and configuration assessment, failed to provide a suitable crane, failed to ensure the automatic safety device was properly calibrated, and exposed employees and occupants to risks from tipping, falling debris and electric shock. Although the defendants' early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition, remedial measures and other subjective factors mitigated penalty, general and specific deterrence remained important, particularly in light of Stephensons' prior conviction....

Court Disposition

Each defendant found guilty of each offence, convicted, and penalised; moiety and costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['Each of the defendants is found guilty of each of the offences as charged and convicted accordingly.' 'I impose a penalty upon Stephensons Cranes Pty Ltd in the sum of $140,000 in matter no IRC 939 of 2010 and of $140,000 in matter no IRC 940 of 2010 with a moiety to the prosecutor in each case.' 'I impose a...