Inspector Neil Simpson v Carrst Pty Limited (formerly known as Carrington Steel Pty Ltd) [2007] NSWIRComm 302

Inspector Neil Simpson v Carrst Pty Limited (formerly known as Carrington Steel Pty Ltd) [2007] NSWIRComm 302

The defendant's offence was objectively serious because it knew the EWP was overdue for the recommended 10-year major inspection, failed to undertake any major inspection during 15 years of operation, and the risk of collapse to persons working at height was reasonably foreseeable and likely to have grave...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S 11(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentence After Late Plea of Guilty Entered on the First Day of the Defended Hearing
Outcome
Defendant convicted and fined $90,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['failure to Ensure Safety of Persons Using an Elevated Work Platform' 'repair and Maintenance of Plant' 'australian Standard 2550.10 1994 Inspections' 'foreseeable Risk to Safety' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'mitigation' 'relative Culpability of Manufacturer']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['failure to Ensure Safety of Persons Using an Elevated Work Platform' 'repair and Maintenance of Plant' 'australian Standard 2550.10 1994 Inspections' 'foreseeable Risk to Safety' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'mitigation' 'relative Culpability of Manufacturer']

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 Under S 11(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentence After Late Plea of Guilty Entered on the First Day of the Defended Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's offence under s 11(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000." "Whether the defendant's failure to repair and maintain the EWP, including not undertaking a major inspection, created a reasonably foreseeable risk with likely serious consequences." 'Whether general deterrence and specific deterrence were relevant to sentence.' "What mitigating effect should be given to the defendant's systems, lack of prior convictions, guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, and cessation of business." "Whether alleged culpability of JLG Industries (Australia) Pty Limited reduced the defendant's culpability."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's offence was objectively serious because it knew the EWP was overdue for the recommended 10-year major inspection, failed to undertake any major inspection during 15 years of operation, and the risk of collapse to persons working at height was reasonably foreseeable and likely to have grave consequences. The serious injuries suffered manifested that risk. General deterrence was important, while specific deterrence was not because the defendant had ceased operating and the risk of re-offending was non-existent. The objective seriousness was mitigated by the systems in place, though only partly implemented for this EWP, and by subjective factors including no prior...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined $90,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The defendant Carrst Pty Limited (formerly known as Carrington Steel Pty Ltd) is convicted of the offence.' 'The defendant is fined $90,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor.' 'The defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutor as agreed or as assessed.']