Safe Work (NSW) v Matthew Albans t/as Matt & Bella’s Meats [2016] NSWDC 125

Safe Work (NSW) v Matthew Albans t/as Matt & Bella’s Meats [2016] NSWDC 125

The offender's failure to assess and control the obvious risk posed by an unguarded mincing machine without an interlock, and failure to train vulnerable apprentice workers, made the offence one of some objective gravity. However, the absence of aggravating factors, lack of prior convictions, remorse, low likelihood of re-offending, causal connection between PTSD and the failure, bankruptcy, limited capacity to pay, ongoing family responsibilities, and the agreed liability for prosecution costs required a fine far below the otherwise appropriate starting point, with a 15% discount for the guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $3,400, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['duty of Persons Undertaking Business' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'injury to Employee' 'use of Mincing Machine' 'training and Supervision' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'capacity to Pay Fine' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['duty of Persons Undertaking Business' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'injury to Employee' 'use of Mincing Machine' 'training and Supervision' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'capacity to Pay Fine' '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 After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offender failed to comply with a health and safety duty under section 21(2) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and thereby exposed Trent Morton to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.' 'What fine should be imposed having regard to objective seriousness, deterrence, mitigating factors, the guilty plea, PTSD, bankruptcy, capacity to pay, and agreed prosecution costs.' "Whether part of the fine should be paid to the prosecutor and whether the offender should pay the prosecutor's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's failure to assess and control the obvious risk posed by an unguarded mincing machine without an interlock, and failure to train vulnerable apprentice workers, made the offence one of some objective gravity. However, the absence of aggravating factors, lack of prior convictions, remorse, low likelihood of re-offending, causal connection between PTSD and the failure, bankruptcy, limited capacity to pay, ongoing family responsibilities, and the agreed liability for prosecution costs required a fine far below the otherwise appropriate starting point, with a 15% discount for the guilty plea.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $3,400, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'The appropriate fine is one of $4,000 that will be discounted by 15% to take into account the plea of guilty.' 'I impose a fine of $3,400.' 'I order pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "I order that the offender pay the...