SafeWork NSW v Haines Bros Earthmoving Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 69

SafeWork NSW v Haines Bros Earthmoving Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 69

The offender breached its work health and safety duty by failing to ensure that control measures for working beneath the raised dump body of the dump truck were adequately identified, integrated into risk assessments and safe working procedures, communicated through information, instruction and training, enforced, and supported by warning signs. Although the risk was not obvious and required the contemporaneous absence of locking devices, the engine being turned on, and a worker being in the chassis area, the risk of serious injury or death was foreseeable and could have been eliminated or minimised by reasonably practicable measures. Taking into account objective seriousness, serious...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $90,000 after a 25% discount for the guilty plea, and ordered to pay agreed prosecution costs of $32,300.
Legal Topics
['duty of Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['duty of Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'prosecution 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

Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offender failed to comply with its health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and thereby exposed a worker to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Act.' 'What penalty should be imposed having regard to objective seriousness, foreseeability of risk, gravity of risk, available control measures, deterrence, mitigating factors and aggravating factors.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in favour of the prosecutor.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender breached its work health and safety duty by failing to ensure that control measures for working beneath the raised dump body of the dump truck were adequately identified, integrated into risk assessments and safe working procedures, communicated through information, instruction and training, enforced, and supported by warning signs. Although the risk was not obvious and required the contemporaneous absence of locking devices, the engine being turned on, and a worker being in the chassis area, the risk of serious injury or death was foreseeable and could have been eliminated or minimised by reasonably practicable measures. Taking into account objective seriousness, serious...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $90,000 after a 25% discount for the guilty plea, and ordered to pay agreed prosecution costs of $32,300.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'The appropriate fine is $120,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty.' 'A fine of $90,000 in total is imposed.' 'Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996, 50% of that fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "The offender is to pay the prosecutor's costs as...