SafeWork NSW v H&F Mechanical Pty Ltd, Hoffman and Hoffman [2018] NSWDC 6

SafeWork NSW v H&F Mechanical Pty Ltd, Hoffman and Hoffman [2018] NSWDC 6

The offences were in the mid-range of objective seriousness because the defendants exposed Mr Coster over more than three months to a foreseeable risk of serious injury by operating a wood splitting machine after a built-in two-hand safety control had been modified so it could be operated with one hand, contrary to the operator's manual and the relevant Australian Standard, when the risk could readily have been eliminated by reinstating the original handle arrangement. Section 10 and s 10A were inappropriate because the offence was not trivial, there were no extenuating circumstances, and the offence was the repeated exposure to risk rather than the manifestation of injury. The evidence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Each defendant was convicted. H&F Mechanical Pty Ltd was fined $160,000. Max Hoffman was fined $32,000. Laurence Hoffman was fined $32,000. Each defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 towards prosecution costs, with a moiety to the prosecutor under s 122 of the Fines Act 1996.
Legal Topics
['category 2 Offence' 'health and Safety Duty' 'exposure to Risk of Serious Injury' 'modified Plant and Machinery' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'fines' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing'] ['category 2 Offence' 'health and Safety Duty' 'exposure to Risk of Serious Injury' 'modified Plant and Machinery' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'fines' 'prosecution Costs']

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

Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each defendant breached a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 contrary to s 32 by exposing Mr Coster to a risk of serious injury.' 'The objective seriousness of the offences, including foreseeability of risk, available measures to eliminate the risk, duration of exposure and removal of a built-in safety feature.' 'The appropriate sentence for each defendant, including fines, guilty plea discount, deterrence, cooperation, prior convictions and community standing.' 'Whether s 6 of the Fines Act 1996, s 10 or s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 should reduce or avoid penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were in the mid-range of objective seriousness because the defendants exposed Mr Coster over more than three months to a foreseeable risk of serious injury by operating a wood splitting machine after a built-in two-hand safety control had been modified so it could be operated with one hand, contrary to the operator's manual and the relevant Australian Standard, when the risk could readily have been eliminated by reinstating the original handle arrangement. Section 10 and s 10A were inappropriate because the offence was not trivial, there were no extenuating circumstances, and the offence was the repeated exposure to risk rather than the manifestation of injury. The evidence...

Court Disposition

Each defendant was convicted. H&F Mechanical Pty Ltd was fined $160,000. Max Hoffman was fined $32,000. Laurence Hoffman was fined $32,000. Each defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 towards prosecution costs, with a moiety to the prosecutor under s 122 of the Fines Act 1996.

Orders

  • ['Each defendant is convicted.' 'H&F is fined $160,000.' 'Max Hoffman is fined $32,000.' 'Laurence Hoffman is fined $32,000.' 'In each case, there is to be a moiety to the prosecutor under s 122 of the Fines Act 1996.' 'Each defendant is to pay an agreed sum of $10,000 towards the prosecution costs.']