Inspector Rowe v Mintark Pty Ltd and Harvey [2009] NSWIRComm 216

Inspector Rowe v Mintark Pty Ltd and Harvey [2009] NSWIRComm 216

Mintark's offence was objectively very serious because its apprentice worked at height on uncovered, inadequately stabilised floor joists without an adequate fall prevention system, adequate risk assessment, training, instruction or supervision, and undertook crane-related tasks for which he was not qualified,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Pursuant to S 8(1) and S 8(1) by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty After Early Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Each defendant was found guilty and convicted; Mintark Pty Ltd was fined $115,000 and Rodney Gerald Harvey was fined $3,000, with a moiety in each case to the prosecutor and costs ordered against the defendants.
Legal Topics
['employer Duty to Ensure Health, Safety and Welfare at Work' 'director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'working at Heights' 'risk Assessment' 'safe Systems of Work' 'penalty Assessment' 'general and Specific Deterrence']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Penalty Proceedings'] ['employer Duty to Ensure Health, Safety and Welfare at Work' 'director Liability for Corporate Contravention' 'working at Heights' 'risk Assessment' 'safe Systems of Work' 'penalty Assessment' 'general and Specific Deterrence']

Source-derived case record

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

Prosecution Pursuant to S 8(1) and S 8(1) by Virtue of S 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty After Early Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on Mintark Pty Ltd for breach of s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'What penalty should be imposed on Rodney Gerald Harvey, as director of Mintark, for the breach deemed by s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' "How the objective seriousness of the unsafe system of work, the worker's injuries, deterrence, guilty pleas, cooperation, remorse, lack of prior convictions, and Mr Harvey's financial and personal circumstances should affect penalty."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mintark's offence was objectively very serious because its apprentice worked at height on uncovered, inadequately stabilised floor joists without an adequate fall prevention system, adequate risk assessment, training, instruction or supervision, and undertook crane-related tasks for which he was not qualified, resulting in serious injury. Penalties had to reflect objective seriousness and deterrence, but were reduced for early guilty pleas, cooperation, remorse, lack of relevant prior convictions and, for Mr Harvey, the personal and financial impact of the incident and the fact that the company penalty would ultimately be borne by him and his wife as shareholders.

Court Disposition

Each defendant was found guilty and convicted; Mintark Pty Ltd was fined $115,000 and Rodney Gerald Harvey was fined $3,000, with a moiety in each case to the prosecutor and costs ordered against the defendants.

Orders

  • ['Each of the defendants is found guilty and convicted of the charges brought against them.' 'I impose a penalty of $115,000 on Mintark and $3,000 on Rodney Gerald Harvey with a moiety in each case to the prosecutor.' 'The defendants are to pay the costs of the prosecutor in an amount assessed by the court in...