SafeWork NSW v CRS NSW Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Jay McGeachie Jenkins [2017] NSWDC 312
The offenders' culpability was in the mid-range because they created and failed to control an obvious and reasonably foreseeable risk of death or serious injury: the Autopatch Vehicle had been modified to store kerosene contrary to its design, kerosene was used to clean pipelines, an LPG open flame gas torch was used near pressurised lines and flammable substances without a risk assessment, the manufacturer's safe systems were not used, training and safety systems were inadequate, and simple remedial steps were available at little or no cost. The serious injuries to Mr Pollard were a manifestation of the risk. Taking into account the substantial harm, deterrence, the offenders' lack of...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 November 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty
- Outcome
- Both offenders convicted and fined; 50% of each fine ordered to be paid to the prosecutor; each offender ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
- Legal Topics
- ['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'officer Due Diligence Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'general and Specific Deterrence' '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.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on CRS NSW Pty Ltd for failing to comply with its health and safety duty and exposing Mr Pollard to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.' 'What penalty should be imposed on Jay McGeachie Jenkins for failing to exercise due diligence to ensure CRS complied with its duty and exposing Mr Pollard to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.' 'How objective seriousness, aggravating factors, mitigating factors, deterrence, pleas of guilty, remorse, post-incident remedial measures, capacity to pay, and costs should affect sentence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The offenders' culpability was in the mid-range because they created and failed to control an obvious and reasonably foreseeable risk of death or serious injury: the Autopatch Vehicle had been modified to store kerosene contrary to its design, kerosene was used to clean pipelines, an LPG open flame gas torch was used near pressurised lines and flammable substances without a risk assessment, the manufacturer's safe systems were not used, training and safety systems were inadequate, and simple remedial steps were available at little or no cost. The serious injuries to Mr Pollard were a manifestation of the risk. Taking into account the substantial harm, deterrence, the offenders' lack of...
Court Disposition
Both offenders convicted and fined; 50% of each fine ordered to be paid to the prosecutor; each offender ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Orders
- ['In relation to CRS NSW Pty Ltd: The offender is convicted.' 'In relation to CRS NSW Pty Ltd: Order the offender to pay a fine of $160,000.' 'In relation to CRS NSW Pty Ltd: Order that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "In relation to CRS NSW Pty Ltd: Order the offender to pay the prosecutor's costs...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment