SafeWork NSW v KML Auto Electrics Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 439

SafeWork NSW v KML Auto Electrics Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 439

The defendant's offence was objectively serious because the risk of a worker being crushed by the raised cab of a tilt cab truck was obvious and foreseeable, the potential harm was catastrophic, the lock pin and other control measures were known, simple, available and cost-free, and Darby Paxton was a vulnerable 18-year-old worker left unsupervised. Although the defendant had no prior convictions, cooperated, showed remorse, had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and entered an early guilty plea, the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence required a substantial fine, discounted by 25% for the plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for an Offence Under S 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (nsw) / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The defendant was convicted and fined $375,000.00 after a 25% discount from an appropriate fine of $500,000.00, with 50% of the fine payable to the prosecutor and prosecutor's costs ordered in the agreed sum of $32,600.00 exclusive of GST.
Legal Topics
['primary Duty of Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'vulnerable Worker' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' "prosecutor's Costs"]
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['primary Duty of Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'vulnerable Worker' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' "prosecutor's 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 an Offence Under S 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (nsw) / Sentence Following Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's breach of s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)." 'Whether the offence was objectively serious having regard to the foreseeability of the risk, catastrophic potential consequences, available control measures and vulnerability of the worker.' 'What weight should be given to general deterrence, specific deterrence, aggravating and mitigating factors, remorse, cooperation, rehabilitation prospects and capacity to pay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's offence was objectively serious because the risk of a worker being crushed by the raised cab of a tilt cab truck was obvious and foreseeable, the potential harm was catastrophic, the lock pin and other control measures were known, simple, available and cost-free, and Darby Paxton was a vulnerable 18-year-old worker left unsupervised. Although the defendant had no prior convictions, cooperated, showed remorse, had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and entered an early guilty plea, the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence required a substantial fine, discounted by 25% for the plea.

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted and fined $375,000.00 after a 25% discount from an appropriate fine of $500,000.00, with 50% of the fine payable to the prosecutor and prosecutor's costs ordered in the agreed sum of $32,600.00 exclusive of GST.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted.' 'The appropriate fine for the offence is $500,000.00, and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.' 'The defendant is to pay a fine of $375,000.00.' 'Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "Pursuant...