Inspector Robert Mayell v William McLean and ors [2006] NSWIRComm 93

Inspector Robert Mayell v William McLean and ors [2006] NSWIRComm 93

The defendants committed serious occupational health and safety breaches because they failed to ensure that electricity at the site was disconnected, failed to ensure contractors used alternative power sources, failed to respond adequately to obvious exposed wiring and illegal modifications, and failed to cap or make safe exposed electrical wires. The risk of electrocution was obvious and easily addressed by simple steps such as electrician isolation, testing and making exposed wires safe. Although the hidden illegal wiring at the main board was not visible, the visible hazards and contractual requirements required the defendants to check and control the risk. The pleas, contrition,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Under Ss 8(1), 8(2) and 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Defendants found guilty on guilty pleas; s 10 application by William McLean refused; fines and costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['workplace Electrocution' 'employer Duty to Employees and Non Employees' 'director Liability' 'safe Systems of Work' 'electrical Isolation and Tag Out Procedures' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality' 'application Under S 10 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['workplace Electrocution' 'employer Duty to Employees and Non Employees' 'director Liability' 'safe Systems of Work' 'electrical Isolation and Tag Out Procedures' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality' 'application Under S 10 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999']

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

Prosecutions Under Ss 8(1), 8(2) and 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Crossley McLean and Associates Pty Ltd breached s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 by exposing persons not in its employment to risks from energised exposed wiring at the work site.' 'Whether William McLean, as director of Crossley McLean and Associates Pty Ltd and Fayon Holdings Pty Ltd, was deemed liable under s 26(1) for breaches of ss 8(1) and 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.' 'What penalties should be imposed having regard to the seriousness of the breaches, guilty pleas, deterrence, contrition, prior records, totality and parity or consistency with related proceedings.' 'Whether William McLean should be dealt with without conviction under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants committed serious occupational health and safety breaches because they failed to ensure that electricity at the site was disconnected, failed to ensure contractors used alternative power sources, failed to respond adequately to obvious exposed wiring and illegal modifications, and failed to cap or make safe exposed electrical wires. The risk of electrocution was obvious and easily addressed by simple steps such as electrician isolation, testing and making exposed wires safe. Although the hidden illegal wiring at the main board was not visible, the visible hazards and contractual requirements required the defendants to check and control the risk. The pleas, contrition,...

Court Disposition

Defendants found guilty on guilty pleas; s 10 application by William McLean refused; fines and costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['In Matter No IRC 5750 of 2004, Crossley McLean and Associates Pty Ltd was found guilty of the offence under s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and fined $105,000, with half payable to the prosecutor by way of moiety, and ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or ordered.' 'In Matter No...