Inspector Jamie Hinton v Rayming Pty Limited [2010] NSWIRComm 129

Inspector Jamie Hinton v Rayming Pty Limited [2010] NSWIRComm 129

The offences were most serious because the defendants stored very heavy pallets and panes of glass on unsecured A frames without risk assessment, access control, signage, safe systems, load assessment, restraints, chocks, proper mechanical equipment, training or induction. The risk of glass falling onto people was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Under S10(1) and S10(1) by Virtue of S26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Both defendants were found guilty; Rayming Pty Limited was fined $180,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; Ming Xue Chen was fined $35,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; one costs order was made to be shared between the defendants.
Legal Topics
['failure to Ensure Premises Were Safe and Without Risks to Health' 'storage and Handling of Glass Panes' 'risk Assessment' 'foreseeability' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'pecuniary Penalties']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['failure to Ensure Premises Were Safe and Without Risks to Health' 'storage and Handling of Glass Panes' 'risk Assessment' 'foreseeability' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'pecuniary Penalties']

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

Prosecutions Under S10(1) and S10(1) by Virtue of S26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Rayming Pty Limited contravened s10(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by failing to ensure that the premises were safe and without risks to health.' 'Whether Ming Xue Chen, as sole director and sole employee of Rayming Pty Limited, contravened s10(1) by virtue of s26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' "What penalties should be imposed having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences, foreseeability, available precautions, deterrence, guilty pleas and the defendants' financial circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were most serious because the defendants stored very heavy pallets and panes of glass on unsecured A frames without risk assessment, access control, signage, safe systems, load assessment, restraints, chocks, proper mechanical equipment, training or induction. The risk of glass falling onto people was foreseeable, particularly given Mr Chen's attendance at a WorkCover course, and simple steps could have eliminated or reduced the risk. Mr Chen was the controlling mind of Rayming and allowed an inexperienced person access to and participation in work at the unsafe premises. Although the defendants pleaded guilty and had limited financial circumstances, the objective seriousness...

Court Disposition

Both defendants were found guilty; Rayming Pty Limited was fined $180,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; Ming Xue Chen was fined $35,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; one costs order was made to be shared between the defendants.

Orders

  • ['In Matter No IRC1153 of 2009, the corporate defendant is found guilty of the offence as charged.' 'Rayming Pty Limited is fined in the sum of $180,000 with a moiety to WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.' 'In Matter No IRC1152 of 2009, the individual defendant is found guilty of the offence as charged.' 'Ming...