Inspector Selby v Mark David Coulbeck [2011] NSWIRComm 36

Inspector Selby v Mark David Coulbeck [2011] NSWIRComm 36

Each defendant was guilty because, as a director and controlling mind of the corporation, each was responsible for a workplace where a brake press had its guard removed, modifications did not prevent access to the dangerous blade and die area, and the employee was inadequately protected, trained and supervised. The risk of serious injury was obvious and foreseeable, and the eventual amputations manifested the seriousness of that risk. The offences were too serious for orders under s 10 or s 10A, but the defendants' pleas, cooperation, remorse, lack of prior convictions, low risk of reoffending, parity and financial circumstances justified reduced fines under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution Under S 8(1) by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Both defendants were found guilty; Mark David Coulbeck was fined $7,000, Ai Chau Lam was fined $3,500, and the prosecutor's costs were ordered to be shared equally.
Legal Topics
["directors' Liability" 'guarding of Dangerous Machinery' 'safe Systems of Work' 'training and Supervision of Employees' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'financial Means to Pay Fines' 'sections 10 and 10 a of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'section 6 of the Fines Act 1996']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing' 'industrial Law'] ["directors' Liability" 'guarding of Dangerous Machinery' 'safe Systems of Work' 'training and Supervision of Employees' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'financial Means to Pay Fines' 'sections 10 and 10 a of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'section 6 of the Fines Act 1996']

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 Under S 8(1) by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each defendant, as a director of Advanced Wire Products Australasia Pty Ltd, contravened s 8(1) by virtue of s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'What penalty should be imposed having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences, pleas of guilty, remorse, financial circumstances, health, deterrence and parity.' 'Whether orders should be made under s 10 or s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' "Whether the defendants' means to pay should reduce the fines under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996."]

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant was guilty because, as a director and controlling mind of the corporation, each was responsible for a workplace where a brake press had its guard removed, modifications did not prevent access to the dangerous blade and die area, and the employee was inadequately protected, trained and supervised. The risk of serious injury was obvious and foreseeable, and the eventual amputations manifested the seriousness of that risk. The offences were too serious for orders under s 10 or s 10A, but the defendants' pleas, cooperation, remorse, lack of prior convictions, low risk of reoffending, parity and financial circumstances justified reduced fines under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Both defendants were found guilty; Mark David Coulbeck was fined $7,000, Ai Chau Lam was fined $3,500, and the prosecutor's costs were ordered to be shared equally.

Orders

  • ['In IRC 1677 of 2009, I find the defendant, Mark David Coulbeck, guilty of the offence as charged.' 'In IRC 1677 of 2009, the defendant is fined in the sum of $7,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.' 'In IRC 1678 of 2009, I find the defendant, Ai Chau Lam, guilty of the offence as charged.'...