Inspector Orr v Perilya Broken Hill Limited [2018] NSWDC 130

Inspector Orr v Perilya Broken Hill Limited [2018] NSWDC 130

The offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness because PBHL foresaw or should have foreseen a risk of death or serious injury, had available measures to eliminate or substantially minimise the risk, but failed in important respects including the JSA process and PPE inspection system. Mr Pollard's serious injuries, PBHL's prior convictions and the need for general and specific deterrence required a significant fine, while PBHL's safety systems, safety improvements, support for Mr Pollard, community contributions and remedial action were mitigating matters. The appropriate penalty was conviction and a fine of $500,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for a Category 2 Offence Under S 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Finding of Guilt
Outcome
Perilya Broken Hill Limited was convicted and fined $500,000.
Legal Topics
['category 2 Work Health and Safety Offence' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'fine']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing'] ['category 2 Work Health and Safety Offence' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'fine']

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 a Category 2 Offence Under S 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Finding of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed on Perilya Broken Hill Limited for a Category 2 offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.' 'The objective seriousness of the offence, including foreseeability of risk and available measures to eliminate or minimise the risk.' "Whether aggravating factors, including Mr Pollard's injuries and prior convictions, should affect sentence." 'The relevance of general and specific deterrence.' 'The relevance of mitigating factors including safety improvements, support for Mr Pollard, community contributions and remedial action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness because PBHL foresaw or should have foreseen a risk of death or serious injury, had available measures to eliminate or substantially minimise the risk, but failed in important respects including the JSA process and PPE inspection system. Mr Pollard's serious injuries, PBHL's prior convictions and the need for general and specific deterrence required a significant fine, while PBHL's safety systems, safety improvements, support for Mr Pollard, community contributions and remedial action were mitigating matters. The appropriate penalty was conviction and a fine of $500,000.

Court Disposition

Perilya Broken Hill Limited was convicted and fined $500,000.

Orders

  • ['Perilya Broken Hill Limited is convicted.' 'Perilya Broken Hill Limited is fined the sum of $500,000.' 'One half of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor in accordance with s 122 of the Fines Act.']