Inspector Gill v Qantas Airways Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 326

Inspector Gill v Qantas Airways Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 326

The defendant breached s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 because it failed to ensure a safe system of work for non-employees at its freight terminal. Although Qantas had significant occupational health and safety systems and had commissioned a hazard survey, it had not undertaken a risk...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Offence proven; defendant convicted and fined $75,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor; defendant ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $12,837.74.
Legal Topics
['employer Duty to Non Employees at Workplace' 'safe System of Work' 'risk Assessment' 'personal Protective Equipment' 'supervision' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'penalty']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['employer Duty to Non Employees at Workplace' 'safe System of Work' 'risk Assessment' 'personal Protective Equipment' 'supervision' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'penalty']

Source-derived case record

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 S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Penalty After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to ensure that non-employees were not exposed to risks to health or safety arising from the conduct of its undertaking at its workplace.' 'Whether the defendant failed to undertake an adequate risk assessment of the Roller Decks and job safety analysis for the role performed by Mr Evans.' 'Whether the defendant failed to ensure non-employees would not sit or squat on or adjacent to the Roller Decks when engaged by the ETV.' 'Whether the defendant failed to ensure non-employees wore appropriate personal protective equipment, being industrial style shorts.' 'Whether the defendant failed to provide proper supervision during the unloading process.' 'What penalty should be imposed having regard to objective seriousness, foreseeability, remedial steps, injury, deterrence, prior convictions, cooperation, remorse and the guilty plea.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 because it failed to ensure a safe system of work for non-employees at its freight terminal. Although Qantas had significant occupational health and safety systems and had commissioned a hazard survey, it had not undertaken a risk assessment of the Roller Decks or job safety analysis for Mr Evans' role; it allowed a radio to remain in a semi-restricted hazardous area, effectively inviting workers to approach and adjust it; it failed to ensure appropriate clothing was worn; and the ease with which Mr Evans entered the area without challenge showed inadequate supervision. A proper assessment would have revealed the...

Court Disposition

Offence proven; defendant convicted and fined $75,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor; defendant ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $12,837.74.

Orders

  • ['The offence is proven and a verdict of guilty is entered.' 'The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'The defendant is fined an amount of $75,000 with a moiety thereof to the prosecutor.' "The defendant shall pay the prosecutor's costs of the proceedings in an amount of $12,837.74."]