Inspector Hannah v Graincorp Operations Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 427

Inspector Hannah v Graincorp Operations Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 427

The defendant failed to provide and maintain safe systems of work, safe plant, and necessary information, instruction, training and supervision concerning a mobile auger whose tendency to overbalance when moved raised and charged with grain was known or obvious. The risk was serious and easily avoidable, and both employees and Paterson's employees were exposed to it. Although the defendant had safety systems, cooperated, pleaded guilty early, assisted the injured worker and took remedial action, its prior convictions precluded a good corporate citizenship discount and required specific deterrence. Separate penalties of $170,000 were appropriate for each offence after a 25 per cent plea...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Under S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Offences proven; defendant convicted on both charges and fined $95,000 in each matter, with a moiety to the prosecutor; total fine $190,000.
Legal Topics
['employer Duties' 'safe System of Work' 'plant Safety' 'information, Instruction, Training and Supervision' 'mobile Grain Auger Incident' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'prior Convictions' 'good Corporate Citizenship' 'consistency in Sentencing' 'totality Principle']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing' 'industrial Relations'] ['employer Duties' 'safe System of Work' 'plant Safety' 'information, Instruction, Training and Supervision' 'mobile Grain Auger Incident' 'specific Deterrence' 'general Deterrence' 'prior Convictions' 'good Corporate Citizenship' 'consistency in Sentencing' 'totality Principle']

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

Prosecutions Under S 8(1) and S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalties should be imposed for the defendant's guilty pleas to offences under s 8(1) and s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000." "Whether the defendant's failures concerning the handling and use of a mobile auger exposed employees and non-employees to serious risks to health and safety." "Whether the defendant's prior convictions precluded any sentencing discount for good corporate citizenship and required specific deterrence." "How consistency with the penalty imposed on Paterson's Transport Pty Ltd and the totality principle should affect the penalties."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide and maintain safe systems of work, safe plant, and necessary information, instruction, training and supervision concerning a mobile auger whose tendency to overbalance when moved raised and charged with grain was known or obvious. The risk was serious and easily avoidable, and both employees and Paterson's employees were exposed to it. Although the defendant had safety systems, cooperated, pleaded guilty early, assisted the injured worker and took remedial action, its prior convictions precluded a good corporate citizenship discount and required specific deterrence. Separate penalties of $170,000 were appropriate for each offence after a 25 per cent plea...

Court Disposition

Offences proven; defendant convicted on both charges and fined $95,000 in each matter, with a moiety to the prosecutor; total fine $190,000.

Orders

  • ['Matter No IRC 6035 of 2004: The offence is proven and a verdict of guilty is entered.' 'Matter No IRC 6035 of 2004: The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'Matter No IRC 6035 of 2004: The defendant is fined an amount of $95,000 with a moiety thereof to the prosecutor.' "Matter No IRC 6035 of 2004:...