Bradley Cummins v RAR Cranes Pty Ltd
[2022] ACTIC 1
•25 March 2022
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Bradley Cummins v RAR Cranes Pty Ltd |
Citation: | [2022] ACTIC 1 |
Hearing Date(s): | 24 January 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 25 March 2022 |
Before: | Chief Industrial Magistrate Walker |
Decision: | See [64] – [67] |
Catchwords: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE – Sentence – failing to comply with a health and safety duty – exposure to risk of death or serious injury or illness – financial capacity of corporation |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Work, Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) Magistrates Court Regulation 2009 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; 93 NSWLR 338 Capral Aluminium Ltd v Workcover Authority of NSW [2000] NSWIR Comm 71; 49 NSWLR 610 Dixon v R [2020] NSWCCA 123 Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 642 Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney-General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96 Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] VSCA 82; 35 VR 399 R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 325 ALR 400 R v UG [2018] ACTCA 64; 281 A Crim R 291 R v Watts [2020] ACTSC 91 Reilly v Devcon Australia Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 84; 36 WAR 492 SafeWork NSW v DIC Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 143 SafeWork NSW v J & CG Constructions Pty Limited [2020] NSWDC 614 SafeWork NSW v Stephen Craig Thompson [2021] NSWDC 689 Saipani v R ACTCA [2021] 5; 288 A Crim R 191 WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Atco Control Pty Limited (1992) 82 IR 80 |
Texts Cited: | Australian Law Reform Commission, Final Report on Corporate Criminal Responsibility, April 2020 |
Parties: | Bradley Cummins, WorkSafe ACT (Informant) RAR Cranes Pty Ltd |
Representation: | Counsel Dr K Weston-Scheuber (Informant) Mr Jordan QC (Offender) Ms S Janackovic (Informant) Ms Epstein (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Clyde & Co (Offender) | |
File Number(s): | CC 40516 of 2018 |
CHIEF INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE WALKER:
Background
The offender, RAR Cranes Proprietary Limited (‘RAR Cranes’), pleaded guilty on 14 October 2021 to one count of failing to comply with a health and safety duty, a category two offence pursuant to section 32 of the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) (‘WHS Act’).
The maximum penalty for this offence for a body corporate is a fine of up to $1,500,000.
For the purpose of sentencing, I had the following available to me:
(a) an agreed statement of facts dated 26 November 2021;
(b) defence written submissions dated 20 December 2021;
(c) the affidavit of Jeffrey Rumble, Director of RAR Cranes, sworn on 16 December 2021 (as redacted);
(d) prosecution written submissions dated 19 January 2022;
(e) defence written submissions in reply dated 21 January 2022;
(f) prosecution bundle of authorities, referred to as ‘comparable cases’;
(g) defence bundle of authorities, also referred to as ‘comparable cases’;
(h) RAR Crane Site Specific Risk Assessment (‘SSRA’);
(i) WorkSafe Visit Reports to RAR sites dated 23 June 2016, 22 August 2016, 27 September 2016, 22 May 2020, and 29 May 2020
(j) The Victim Impact Statements of:
(i)Nellie Holtz;
(ii)Bevan Holtz;
(iii)Ana Lewis;
(iv)Kelly Holtz;
(v)Daisy Kennedy-Holtz;
(vi)Frances Parker;
(vii)Cheri Parker; and
(viii)Justin Holtz.
The offence occurred on 4 August 2016 at the University of Canberra Hospital construction site. An information was laid in respect to the offending on 18 April 2018. The matter was first mentioned in court on 17 May 2018. An issue arose as to the jurisdiction of this Court, which I dealt with on 29 November 2018. On that date there was consent to concurrent hearings in respect to a number of co-accused.
The matter proceeded on the basis that there would be a hearing in respect to this offender and a number of co-offenders. The matter was due to commence on 18 October 2021. For various reasons that did not proceed. Prior to commencement, following negotiation as to the particulars, the offender pleaded guilty to a re-particularised category two offence on 14 October 2021. Oral submissions were received on 24 January 2022.
By its plea of guilty, RAR admitted that it breached its safety duty so far as was reasonably practicable by failing to eliminate or minimise the risk posed by the crane tipping over and crushing a worker by, in summary:
(a) conducting a high-risk crane lifting operation and failing to carry out adequate assessment of the suitability of the crane for the lift;
(b) continuing to operate the crane outside its safety limitations, with alarms operating;
(c) manoeuvring a crane over uneven terrain outside the safety limits of the crane;
(d) conducting high risk construction by persons who had not been provided task specific training, instruction and supervision, in particular not instructing Mr Watts to fill out a Site Specific Risk Assessment (‘SSRA’) before commencing every job, failing to instruct Mr Watts as to the use of that crane and the fitting of the super lift counterweight before using it on the site, and failing to instruct Mr Paul Kelly properly as to how to rig loads as close to the ground as possible;
(e) failing to engage in reasonable alternatives to the conduct such as using alternative machinery for the job or ceasing operations until it was safe to continue.
Mr Watts, a co-offender, pleaded guilty to a category one offence and was sentenced in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 20 April 2020 to imprisonment for a period of twelve months, fully suspended upon entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months.
A further co-offender, Multiplex Constructions Proprietary Limited (‘Multiplex’) pleaded guilty to a category two offence and was sentenced by this Court on 12 November 2021. Multiplex was convicted of the offence and sentenced to a fine of $150,000.
The Facts
The facts are extensive and somewhat technical. I provide a summary as follows. The incident which lead to this offending involved the use of a 2016 Terex MAC-25-4 non-slew articulated crane (a ‘pick and carry’ or ‘franna’ crane) (‘the Crane’) and a generator (a 10,300 kilogram 500 KVA, 575D5B model diesel powered electrical generator) (‘the Generator’) on 4 August 2016 at the University of Canberra Hospital Building Site in Bruce in the Australian Capital Territory (‘the Site’).
Multiplex was the project and site manager for the project. RAR was a specialist sub-contractor providing cranes and drivers for the project. As part of its Safety Plan for work conducted at the Site, RAR had in place both Safe Work Method Statements (‘SWMS’) and an SSRA form which was to be completed prior to each lifting operation. The Safety Plan also required that RAR’s operators were to comply strictly to the manufacturer’s guidelines and built-in safety devices and be properly trained and competent in the equipment they used. It also provided for appropriate crane selection for the particular job.
RAR’s operations on the Site
RAR provided a variety of cranage services at the Site on 16 separate days, utilising at least five types of cranes.
Prior to 4 August 2016, the Crane had been used for two previous lifts at the Site, on 7 June 2016 and 18 July 2016. It had been operated by one RAR employee, Mr Matthew Holt. On each of these occasions the SSRA was completed before the work was undertaken by Mr Holt and counter-signed by Mr Nolan, a Multiplex Site Supervisor.
The Crane operated above capacity on each of these occasions. Following the second lift, Mr Holt spoke to Mr Newton, crane allocator with RAR, noting that there were safety issues in using the Crane to move the Generator.
Mr Holt then went on leave having informed RAR that another employee would need to be trained if the Crane was to be used whilst he was away. That did not happen.
Between 2 August and 4 August 2016, the Crane was operated by Mr Watts, an otherwise experienced crane driver. Mr Watts was not provided with training in respect to this Crane.
The events of 4 August 2016
On 4 August 2016, Multiplex wanted the Generator moved to provide power to the Site the following day. RAR was told this at about 2:00 pm – 2:30 pm. A spot had been cleared for the Generator however a specific safe path of travel for the Crane had not. A smaller crane was on Site but deemed unsuitable.
Mr Van der Kley of RAR went on Site to scope the job. He had been dogman for Mr Holt on 18 July. He initially recommended using a 200-tonne slewing Crane. That was rejected by Multiplex as too expensive and logistically undesirable.
Mr Van der Kley inspected the Generator and walked the path. He concluded that it was difficult to assess the suitability of the path just by walking it; the Crane would “let you know what its capable of”. He spoke with Mr Newton and confirmed selection of the Crane for the job. Mr Newton called Mr Bain of Multiplex and advised him that the crew allocated to the job would require site induction.
Mr Van der Kley also spoke with Mr Watts, a casual employee of RAR and the driver selected for the job. He warned Mr Watts that it would be a complex lift and that the terrain was tricky. Mr Kelly was allocated to assist Mr Watts. Neither had been informed of Mr Holt’s reservations about the use of the Crane to move the Generator.
Mr Watts and Mr Kelly had been working with the Crane since 6:15 am that day and had completed four jobs across Canberra during which the Crane was operated well within its lifting capacity. Mr Watts and Mr Kelly arrived at the RAR yard about 4 pm to get information and equipment for the Multiplex Site job.
Mr Watts drove the Crane; Kelly drove a small truck with a counterweight in it. Mr Watts had some experience with this type of Crane but not with its use in conjunction with the particular counterweight to be used. The Operator Manual did address how it was to be used but Mr Watts did not familiarise himself with that.
They arrived on Site at 4:52 pm. It was already twilight. Mr Drummond, as Multiplex Site Supervisor, met them. They were not given site induction, despite Mr Newton advising earlier that this would be required.
Mr Watts raised with Mr Drummond the possibility of using the 200-tonne crane. Mr Drummond told him that this was not an option and he had to do the lift with the Crane, saying it had been done before and would be fine. Mr Watts tried to call Mr Newton but could not get through. He formed the view that the Crane would be capable of performing the lift albeit he was aware that it would be overloaded at the outset.
Mr Watts did not study the Crane’s Operator’s Manual, which was in the cabin of the Crane.
The counterweights were connected to the Crane but in the wrong direction.
The Crane is a sophisticated machine. As well as a “black box” system, it operates a Load Moment Indicator system (‘LMI’) which provides a digital real time screen read out of the Crane’s operating parameters, including information about the weight of the load, lifting capacity and tilt of the Crane. It did not pick up that the counterweight was wrongly installed; consequently, the data displayed to the operator was not accurate. Mr Watts knew that the LMI had not registered the counterweight but did not immediately stop the lift as required.
The Generator was not rigged properly; it was higher than ideal and at a significant angle to the ground. Mr Kelly, the dogman, had not been appropriately trained as to how to rig the Generator, nor of the significance of failing to do it correctly.
Mr Watts operated the Crane with the “override” switch in place. That option was to be used only where necessary and with extreme caution.
The lift commenced with four people walking along close to the corners of the Generator, Mr Kelly, Mr Brown, Mr Drummond and Mr Holtz. They physically steadied it at times.
It was just about dark. The Crane had headlights. Part way along, Mr Drummond got into his vehicle, which he drove in reverse in front of the Crane with its headlights on to increase visibility.
The Crane operated on overload for a significant portion of the lift which covered a distance of approximately 600 metres between 5:53 and 6:41 pm.
The Crane had the capacity to work at a 5 degree angle. The path travelled included an unavoidable side slope of 6.59 degrees and other angles of up to 10.27 degrees.
The Crane tipped and the boom immediately struck and instantly killed Mr Holtz.
The manufacturer’s Operator Manual and Rated Capacity Manual both provided warnings which were contrary to the manner in which the Crane was operated by the untrained Mr Watts on this occasion.
Mr Watts on each of his jobs with the Crane earlier in the day had filled out the SSRA but after the job was done. This was contrary to both common sense and his training but of course, the Multiplex Site Supervisor did not require that of him either. He did not properly assess the job, did not carry out a written risk assessment, and did not read the relevant Manuals. Multiplex appears to have exerted some pressure to get the job done using the Crane that day.
Mr Van der Kley and Mr Watts had both had their reservations about using the Crane as opposed to the more expensive 200-tonne crane but neither acted decisively in light of those reservations.
Mr Watts had signed the SWMS only about a month prior to this incident; that document directed that in the event of malfunction, a Crane was not to be used further until the malfunction was rectified.
Mr Watts had refused to undertake some work with his previous employer for safety reasons; they had lost work as a result. He also terminated a lift as a rigger whilst with RAR however was subsequently engaged by it for further work.
It is against this factual background that I am to assess RAR’s level of criminal culpability.
Sentencing Considerations
Objective seriousness
I adopt and repeat the general principles I detailed in my sentencing remarks in respect to Multiplex at paragraphs [22] – [25]:
In assessing the objective seriousness of this offending, I have regard to the objects of the WHS Act detailed at s 3(1)(a), that the legislation aims to protect the health, safety and welfare of workers and others through the elimination or minimisation of risks from work, and at s 3(2) that in furthering this end, regard must be had to the principle that workers and other persons should be given the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety and welfare from hazards and risks arising from work.
It is the extent of the offender’s failure to ensure that the worker was not exposed to risk that is the criteria for assessing the seriousness of the breach, rather than the consequence of any breach (Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] VSCA 82 at [62]). By failing to check and sign off on the SSRA, Multiplex removed a level of protection which it had put in place to address the use of inherently dangerous machinery on its site. That failure increased the risk of harm to workers and others on the site.
That noted, the realisation of a potential risk is relevant to assessing the offender’s culpability for the breach in a number of ways. Here it was a possible consequence of the breach that the crane would be operated unsafely. That it was so operated confirms that the risk did in fact exist. The consequence goes some way to establishing the likelihood of the risk materialising; it was a real not merely a remote possibility which materialised on the first occasion that the Multiplex safety measure was not implemented. If the crane was not operated within its parameters for those particular site conditions, one of the factors the SSRA compliance sought to address, the likelihood of the risk eventuating was high.
The death of a worker also evidences the gravity of the breach as it evidences the harm that may flow as a result, at least in part, of Multiplex’s breach (SafeWork NSW v DIC Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 143).
A further consideration is what reasonably practicable steps were open to RAR to avoid the breach. Its situation is quite different to Multiplex’s in that respect. Arguably RAR was simply not in a position to meet Multiplex’s requirements on this occasion. It had no trained operator for the Crane which Multiplex insisted be used. Its options were to offer a different Crane, which had been done and declined; to insist on a better prepared path; to await the return of Mr Holt, a trained operator; or have another person trained, at least to the extent of having had a proper opportunity to read and apply the Crane specific Operator Manuals. None of these were a quick fix to the situation in which RAR found itself. That said, this is to be balanced against the highly foreseeable catastrophic risk which attached to the failure to take these measures.
This was a situation in which the expert sub-contractor was required to say no to the demand of the principal, even at the risk of losing work, to ensure worker safety. Whilst Mr Watts was responsible for operation of the Crane at the Site, RAR had control over the primary cause of the risk – that is doing the job with the wrong Crane. The extent of that control is relevant in assessing the seriousness of the breach: see WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Atco Control Pty Limited (1998) 82 IR 80 at [84]-[85].
On the facts, I find that RAR failed to properly assess the suitability of the Crane for the job. Compounding this, RAR sent an otherwise competent worker to perform what had been identified by its own employees as a tricky job, without appropriate training on the equipment to be used to an unfamiliar worksite in the dark at the end of a long day of work in order to meet the demands of the principal contractor. Mr Watts had not been trained by the manufacturer as Mr Holt had. He was unlikely to be afforded the opportunity of properly reading and digesting the Crane’s operator manuals in the circumstances in which he found himself. RAR had been warned by another employee to find a safer way to move the Generator, and of the need to train someone to operate the Crane is his absence and had done neither. Whilst RAR had a good safety system in place, as is so frequently the case, its employees, both at the supervisory and front line levels, failed to comply with those procedures. That failure was grave.
The likelihood of the Crane being operated improperly was apparent in the circumstances. The vulnerability of workers at the scene was obvious. The risk of death or serious injury as a result of such a machine being operated improperly was entirely foreseeable.
Parity
The principles of parity must be considered as RAR is charged with a crime arising out of the same set of circumstances as Mr Watts and Multiplex (see Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49 at [30]; Murray v IA [2020] ACTSC 288; Saipani v R ACTCA [2021] 5; Safework NSW V Stephen Craig Thompson [2021] NSWDC 689 [164]-[170]).
Multiplex applied, or at least RAR perceived on reasonable grounds, some pressure to perform the task with a particular Crane in a particular time frame. Multiplex failed to comply with RAR’s request for a site induction and failed to require completion of the SSRA before work commenced. However, RAR, as the specialist sub-contractor, was best placed to assess the viability of conducting the work required safely, and to provide properly trained personnel to do so, or indeed to refuse to do so if the conditions were not appropriate. Where the sub-contractor has specialist skill and greater control of the work and worker, it will often, although not always, be more culpable than a principal with a broader supervisory role for the project: see Reilly v Devcon Australia Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 84 at [35]-[36]; SafeWork NSW v J & CG Constructions Pty Limited [2020] NSWDC 614 at [109]. I assess RAR as having the greater criminal liability as between the two corporations in the circumstances.
Mr Watts was convicted of a category one offence with the mental element of recklessness. That puts him in a different category for sentencing to RAR; there is no scope for application of the principle of parity as between the two.
Section 33 Considerations
The Court is required to consider factors detailed in s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT). A number are applicable to this offence and this offender.
S 33 (1)(e) requires consideration of any injury, loss or damage suffered resulting from the offence. S 33 (1) (f) requires consideration of the effect of the offence on the victims of the offence, the victims' families and anyone else who may make a victim impact statement. I have had regard to the observations of Court of Appeal in R v UG [2018] ACTCA 64 in which caution was urged where harm to the victim is not an element of the offence, as is the case here. There is, however, is a clear causal connection between RAR’s criminal conduct and the loss suffered by Mr Holtz’ family consequent upon his untimely death. The death of a worker was a foreseeable consequence of the criminal conduct. The effect of that death on his family is profound and beyond measure and is properly taken into account. In saying this I acknowledge that in doing so, the Court is not to apply additional punishment nor seek in some way to assuage the grief of the family, which will not be meaningfully addressed by this process.
Section 33(1)(i) requires a consideration of the degree of responsibility of the offender for the commission of the offence which I have found to be significant in this case. It is not diminished by the conduct of others.
Section 33(1)(j) requires the Court to consider any plea of guilty. A plea was entered to one of two charges originally brought. The more serious category one charge was dismissed when the prosecution offered no evidence in respect to it. A plea of guilty was indicated to the category two offence in September 2020; negotiated particulars and facts were agreed on 25 November 2021. As I noted when sentencing Multiplex, the law also recognises that the full discount for a plea entered after a negotiated settlement with reduced charges is consistent with a presumption of innocence in respect to the charge(s) which did not proceed (see Dixon v R [2020] NSWCCA 123, in which Hoeben CJ cited with approval R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117). Subsequent delays have been largely outside of the defendant’s control. To that extent the defendant is to receive the full benefit of the plea for its utilitarian value at 25%.
S 33(1)(m) requires the Court to take into account an offender’s character and antecedents. This offender has no prior criminal convictions for work health and safety offences despite having operated in an inherently high-risk industry providing cranage services in the ACT and NSW for 28 years.
S 33(1)(v) requires a consideration of the reason or reasons why the offender committed the offence. I accept that RAR at least perceived that they were under some commercial pressure to meet Multiplex’s requirements, however I do not consider that this factor significantly reduces criminal culpability in the work safety context, especially where the foreseeable risk is so great. It could equally be observed that Mr Watts was subject to perceived pressure to perform the work to assist his employer as Her Honour, Murrell CJ, found in sentencing Mr Watts in R v Watts [2020] ACTSC 91 at [92].
S 33(1)(w) requires a consideration of an offender’s remorse. I accept as genuine the expression of remorse by Mr Rumble on behalf of RAR. Another aspect of assessing remorse is consideration of remedial measures post-incident. RAR had some good work systems in place prior to the incident. It had shown a good degree of commitment to safety issues, including retaining a dedicated “safety advisor” in March 2016, a few months prior to this incident. The offending came about in no small part due to non-compliance with those systems at various levels of the organisation.
Since the incident, external expert review was undertaken and its recommendations implemented, including annual audits. The role of “lifting supervisor” has been introduced to assist operators on site with difficult lifts. That role, along with enhanced training and signs on the equipment, have been developed to encourage staff to refuse to conduct unsafe work. Training has improved with external trainers coming into the organisation and this knowledge being passed on by internal trainers. Competency is now better verified. Safety documentation is installed on workers mobile phones. RAR also supports local sport and charities with donations in excess of $20,000 per annum, in particular Construction Charitable Works which assists those in the construction industry with a range of issues. It also supports traineeships. An RAR director sits on the ACT Crane Safety Committee established in 2019 by WorkSafe ACT.
S 33(1)(za) requires the Court to consider current sentencing practice. I have had regard to applicable principles of sentencing for this category of offence. I have also considered the penalties applied in similar cases, in accordance with the principles expressed in R v Pham [2015] HCA 39 at [29] and Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428 at [49-53].
I have considered RAR’s assistance to authorities in this matter. I accept that they cooperated with the WorkSafe investigation. However, as with Multiplex, I do not consider that such cooperation rises to the level of warranting a particular discount, particularly in light of WorkSafe’s coercive powers (Part 9 WHS Act).
Other considerations
Both general and specific deterrence are relevant. Again, I adopt and repeat the observations made in sentencing Multiplex. General deterrence is a primary consideration, related as it is to protection of the community at large but especially workers. Sentencing of industrial safety crimes serves to send a message to industry about the importance the community places on industrial safety.
Specific deterrence has a role even in respect to an offender who has not previously offended and who is considered a low risk of future offending. The need is to ensure ongoing vigilance in high-risk workplaces (see Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [173]-[184]). That need is greater where the Court is not reassured that the risk of reoffending is not very low or non-existent (Capral Aluminium Ltd v Workcover Authority of NSW [2000] NSWIR Comm 71 at [77]. The fact that RAR has been subject to a number of prohibition and improvement notices since the offence, and that its Annual Review Record notes that training and skills checks are required preclude the Court from arriving at the conclusion that there is no risk of future offending.
Clearly accountability and denunciation are important considerations.
The question of a corporate defendant’s capacity to pay a fine is relevant in so far as the Court may take in to account specific evidence of a limited capacity to meet a fine but is also required to have regard to the need to sentence at a level likely to be effective in achieving both specific and general deterrence. I adopt and repeat my observations in the Multiplex sentence at [67] to [68]:
[This] was recognised by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its Final Report on Corporate Criminal Responsibility, April 2020, at paragraph 8.31. See also Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney-General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96 at [59].
The correct approach is not that an affluent offender is to be fined at a higher rate, but rather that the very substantial reduction that is often applied having regard to a smaller corporation or individual’s capacity to pay is not a consideration when sentencing a corporation with substantial assets, for whom a lesser fine is unlikely to have any significant deterrent effect.
I accept that RAR is a much smaller operation than Multiplex with far fewer employees and scope of operations. However, it is a well-established business with 90 employees, 83 full-time and around 3000 jobs per annum. That said, there is nothing before me as to its profitability or any particular financial impediment to meeting a fine. It is clearly a significant commercial enterprise.
The prosecutor seeks costs pursuant to s 244 Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT) on behalf of the informant.
Orders
I record a conviction.
The defendant is fined $300,000.
7 days allowed to pay.
The defendant is to pay the informant’s costs of the proceedings in an amount agreed by the parties pursuant to s 4(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Regulation2009 (ACT) or, in default of the filing of an agreement under s 5 of the Regulation within 14 days of the date of this order, in an amount assessed by the Registrar in accordance with the scale of costs as applied under s 4(3(b) and (c) of the Regulation.
| I certify that the preceding [67] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Chief Industrial Magistrate Walker. Associate: A Jones Date: 25 March 2022 |
12
4