Inpector Amanda Templeton v Pirelli Cables Australia Limited [2003] NSWIRComm 177

Inpector Amanda Templeton v Pirelli Cables Australia Limited [2003] NSWIRComm 177

The offence was serious because the defendant knew metal plates covering lubricant pits could move, twist or swivel when crossed by persons or heavy equipment, the risk of injury was foreseeable, and the identified risk could have been eliminated by practical steps. The defendant failed to provide a safe system of work, adequately warn employees, and conduct an adequate risk assessment. Although mitigating factors were accepted, including cooperation, remedial action, updated safety procedures and a generally good recent corporate record, the defendant left a known risk unassessed for three years and had prior convictions, so conviction and a substantial fine were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment as to Penalty After Liability Judgment
Outcome
Defendant found guilty, convicted and fined $135,000 with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.
Legal Topics
['failure to Ensure Employee Safety' 'unsafe System of Work' 'risk Assessment' 'warning Employees of Workplace Risks' 'deterrence' 'mitigation of Penalty']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Relations' 'sentencing and Penalties'] ['failure to Ensure Employee Safety' 'unsafe System of Work' 'risk Assessment' 'warning Employees of Workplace Risks' 'deterrence' 'mitigation of Penalty']

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

Prosecution Under S15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 / Judgment as to Penalty After Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's breach of s15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983." "Whether the objective seriousness of the offence was increased by the defendant's knowledge of unsecured metal plates and the foreseeability of injury." 'What weight should be given to deterrence, prior convictions, absence of a guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, remedial action and occupational health and safety systems.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was serious because the defendant knew metal plates covering lubricant pits could move, twist or swivel when crossed by persons or heavy equipment, the risk of injury was foreseeable, and the identified risk could have been eliminated by practical steps. The defendant failed to provide a safe system of work, adequately warn employees, and conduct an adequate risk assessment. Although mitigating factors were accepted, including cooperation, remedial action, updated safety procedures and a generally good recent corporate record, the defendant left a known risk unassessed for three years and had prior convictions, so conviction and a substantial fine were warranted.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty, convicted and fined $135,000 with a moiety to the WorkCover Authority.

Orders

  • ['The defendant company is convicted of the offence as charged under s15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.' 'The defendant is fined the sum of $135,000 with moiety thereof to the prosecutor.']