Stephen James Orr v Newcrest Mining Limited [2018] NSWDC 370

Stephen James Orr v Newcrest Mining Limited [2018] NSWDC 370

The offence was of significant objective gravity because the risk of death or serious injury from rocks or caved material discharging during secondary break operations was obvious and had been identified by the offender, workers were required to operate the Jacon from outside the cabin and to be exposed to a crush risk, and means of eliminating or minimising the risk were identifiable and available. Taking into account the death of Mr Peters, substantial harm, the need for general and specific deterrence, and mitigating factors including rehabilitation, remorse, guilty plea and cooperation, the appropriate fine was $600,000 reduced by 25% for the guilty plea to $450,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Breach of Work Health and Safety Duty Contrary to Section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $450,000 after a 25% reduction for the plea of guilty.
Legal Topics
['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'underground Mine Safety' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'mitigating Factors' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'underground Mine Safety' 'objective Seriousness' 'aggravating Factors' 'mitigating Factors' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Breach of Work Health and Safety Duty Contrary to Section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What fine should be imposed for the offender's failure to comply with its work health and safety duty, exposing Lee William Peters to a risk of death or serious injury." 'Whether the offence was objectively serious having regard to the obvious and identified risk, availability of controls, and the death of Mr Peters.' 'What aggravating and mitigating factors should be taken into account on sentence, including substantial harm, rehabilitation, remorse, plea of guilty and cooperation with the regulator.' "Whether part of the fine should be paid to the prosecutor and whether the offender should pay the prosecutor's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was of significant objective gravity because the risk of death or serious injury from rocks or caved material discharging during secondary break operations was obvious and had been identified by the offender, workers were required to operate the Jacon from outside the cabin and to be exposed to a crush risk, and means of eliminating or minimising the risk were identifiable and available. Taking into account the death of Mr Peters, substantial harm, the need for general and specific deterrence, and mitigating factors including rehabilitation, remorse, guilty plea and cooperation, the appropriate fine was $600,000 reduced by 25% for the guilty plea to $450,000.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $450,000 after a 25% reduction for the plea of guilty.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'The appropriate fine is $600,000 that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.' 'I impose a fine of $450,000.' 'I order that pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996, 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "The offender is to pay the prosecutor's costs as...