Lactos Pty Ltd v Kent
[2003] TASSC 82
•3 September 2003
[2003] TASSC 82
CITATION: Lactos Pty Ltd v Kent [2003] TASSC 82
PARTIES: LACTOS PTY LTD
v
KENT, Robert Bruce
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION: APPELLATE
FILE NO/S: LCA 10/2003
DELIVERED ON: 3 September 2003
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
HEARING DATES: 3 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Slicer J
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Judgment and punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Circumstances of offence – Circumstances of offender – Parity – Sentence not excessive in circumstances nor inconsistent with comparable cases.
Plastic Fabrications Pty Ltd v The Crown [1999] TASSC 95, distinguished.
Haysdale Nominees v Shepherd (1997) 98 A Crim R 435, followed.
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448; Burton v R [2002] TASSC 64; Franklin v R 82/1991, considered.
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Tas), s9.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [835]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant: C N Dockray
Respondent: L Goodsell
Solicitors:
Appellant: C N Dockray
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 82
Number of Paragraphs: 17
Serial No 82/2003
File No LCA 10/2003
LACTOS PTY LTD v ROBERT BRUCE KENT
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J
3 September 2003
The appellant was convicted of the offence of failing to provide a safe system of work, contrary to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 ("the Act"), s9. The complaint alleged contravention of the Act, s9(1)(a)(ii) and (c). No objection to duplicity was made at the hearing of the plea of guilty, nor on the hearing of this appeal. The particulars of the complaint are:
"… when on the said date at the said workplace Mr Saltmarsh, in the process of fitting the whey tube in the whey line (a cleaning process) whilst standing between the rails of the tub indexing conveyor, when the conveyor began moving forward, had his lower right leg trapped between the conveyor and a structural cross tie between the conveyor rails, when the conveyor began moving forward thereby causing a crush injury to his leg.
(a) Failing to have in place, enforce and maintain a system of work whereby a lockout/tag out procedure was employed with respect to the tub indexing conveyor [illegible] to its cleaning, in particular by Mr Saltmarsh, while he was standing in and adjacent to the conveyor so that the conveyor was isolated.
(b) Failing to adequately, or at all, instruct or train Mr Saltmarsh with respect to the safe operation and use of plant and equipment in the Soft Ripened Cheese production room, in particular with respect to a safe method of removing the whey off basket from the conveyor and/or fitting the whey tube to the whey line; specifically, a method that required the isolation of power to the tub-indexing conveyor before cleaning commenced."
For the purpose of this appeal, the breach will be accepted as failure to provide adequate safety equipment. The failure of a supervisor to ensure that the plant line had been shut down will be regarded as a causative factor in the resulting injury. Failure to adequately instruct or train Mr Saltmarsh was not advanced as a factor in the occurrence of injury.
Lactos operated a food processing plant. A production line included a conveyor belt which advanced by approximately .5 metres per 30 seconds. Access to the conveyor was restricted by a metal cage. At the end of a shift, the production line was shut down and the conveyor belt halted. When that was done, maintenance staff, which in this case included the injured worker, would enter through the cage and stand on the conveyor to clean or repair the processing equipment. The supervisor was responsible for ensuring the closure of the line. On the day of the accident, the supervisor was in the process of the practical training of another employee. At the time of shutting down, the supervisor was engaged in other duties and the trainee was suddenly called away. Each doubtless believed that the other would ensure the disconnection of the conveyor belt. Simon Saltmarsh entered inside the frame to carry out maintenance work. The conveyor belt moved forward catching his leg between two pieces of machinery, causing a substantial crush injury to his lower right leg.
The system had been installed in 1995 and the method employed was in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. However, no electrical isolation unit, known as a "lock-out tag-out system" had been installed.
Following the accident, Lactos rectified the equipment deficiency and re-addressed its training and supervisory requirements. It showed great concern for the welfare of the injured employee, taking steps which went beyond its statutory requirements.
Following the plea in mitigation, the learned magistrate recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of $30,000. He stated the following as reasons for his decision:
"Typically these sorts of matters are, in general sense, offences of omission rather than commission, in the sense that an accident occurs because insufficient attention has been paid to factors or processes which, had sufficient attention been given to them, might yield up the prospect that the systems were flawed, and to have lead [sic] to the very accident that happened here.
The first point I make is that, that these have been offences of omission rather than commission. The second point I make is, a general point I make, is that these proceedings are, of course, not compensatory in nature. But where culpability exists, as it does here, the ‑ I should address the issue in order to determine the level of culpability, and whether or not the penalty, by way of general deterrents, can be seen to emerge, and require being addressed. And whilst the report I have on the worker's injuries is of course relevant, it is certainly not a factor which is determinative of the issue of culpability. And it is certainly ‑ and it is neither a factor which will give one much direction as to the level of any fine which should be imposed. So that these proceedings, as I say, are not compensatory in nature, but should address the issue of culpability.
With respect to Mr Dockray's submissions, I see the level of culpability here as being relatively high. For the reasons I think I've already indicated, it would have been a simple matter to have installed an electronic cut‑off for the conveyor belt where, in a process such as this, the worker was required to stand on machinery that here moved whilst he was attending to another task. The fact that he was required to stand on what would normally in the process was an operation, being moving machinery, should have alerted the operators to the potential of ‑ to risk potential, and to possible injury. As I say, it would have been a simple matter to install an electronic cut‑off so that there was no possibility of that. That has now been done, and I applaud the company for that.
There was also a system failure in that two persons seem to be charged with the same responsibility. For the potential, as in fact occurred here, each of them assumed that the other turned the machinery off. That is a matter clearly ‑ well to me, it's a matter of obvious failure.
The law provides for a penalty, as I understand it, of a fine, converting penalty units into the fine, of up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Now there are various matters to consider in determining how far one should retreat from the maximum penalty. I have regard to the medical report, detailing the worker's injuries, and his current situation regarding those injuries. I note that a consent judgment has been entered to common law proceedings instituted by the worker. They're factors I take into account.
But I return to the issue of culpability, and the level of culpability. I take into account the fact that the company is a good corporate citizen, and that this offence, in a real sense, is out of character, given the material handed up by Mr Dockray, which has addressed relevant matters. There is a conviction upon the complaint. I believe the fine of thirty thousand dollars is the appropriate response, and that is the fine imposed, together with costs."
Basis of appeal
The sole ground of appeal is that the penalty imposed was "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case". Refined, the basis extended to the requirement of consistency in sentence and relied on material placed before the Court indicating the range of penalties imposed to show that the penalty in the present case was both excessive and inconsistent with comparable cases. Given the paucity of helpful material in cases involving industrial safety, publication of that material might prove useful to courts of summary jurisdiction and, accordingly, the material is included as Annexure A at the end of these reasons for decision. Yardley v Betts [1979] SASR 108.
The scheme of the legislation is one of self-regulation by industry in partnership with unions, government, and members of the particular workplace. Failure by management to ensure safe machinery can only be addressed by meaningful sanction and remedial action. Sanction is designed to ensure proactive conduct, whilst remedy retains the benefit of hindsight. The conceptual mix is said to be preferable to a minute regulatory scheme. If such be the case, then sanction forms a significant component, especially if the cost of compliance is seen to be less than breach and accident. Principles relevant to any assessment of the appropriate pecuniary sanction were considered in Haysdale Nominees v Shepherd (1997) 98 A Crim R 435 by Owen J at 439, in the following terms:
"In determining whether imposing a fine of 25 per cent of the maximum penalty is excessive, it is appropriate to bear in mind that 'the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence is attended for cases falling within the worst category of cases for which that penalty is prescribed: Ibbs (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 451; 27 A Crim R 465 at 468.
The Court of Criminal Appeal in Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 at 342 has indicated that it is necessary in the exercise of the appellate function to have regard, among other things, to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, the standards of sentencing customarily observed with respect to the offence, the place which the criminal conduct occupies on the scale of seriousness of offences of that type, and personal circumstances of the offence.
Where the penalty for the offence is the imposition of a fine there are two further important factors the court must consider in sentencing. First the court is required to have regard to the effect of such a fine on the defendant and its ability to pay such a fine: Wright (1977) Crim LR 236. Secondly where the penalty is pursuant to legislation the sentencing judge is to consider whether the fine satisfies the required deterrent objective of the legislation. In this case the fine should be of an amount that would ensure an employer undertakes its responsibilities under the Act and provides employees with working conditions free from hazards: Morrison v Competitive Foods Ltd t/as Hungry Jacks (unreported, Supreme Court, WA, Murray J, No 1115 of 1991, 25 October 1991).
As I have already said, there is no precise indication of the factors which were taken into account in arriving at a fine of $25,000. The question which I have to consider is whether on taking into account all of the relevant material the circumstances in which the offence was committed warrant a fine of $25,000.
In Palynolab Resources Pty Ltd v Morrison (unreported, Supreme Court, WA, Ipp J, No 1193 of 1995, 22 August 1996) Ipp J also dealt with an appeal against sentence in respect of a charge under s 19 of the Act. His Honour said:
'The issues that do arise relate, essentially, to the appropriate sentence to be imposed for what, in effect, was criminal negligence. It is a basic principle of the law of sentencing that the penalty imposed should reflect the criminality of the offences committed. In this case, the criminality of the offences is substantially affected by the degree of negligence involved in those acts which caused the death.'
In arriving at an appropriate sentence for an offence under s 19(1) of the Act it will be necessary to determine where on the scale of possible criminality this particular offence should be placed. As stated in the Palynolab this will largely depend on the degree of negligence involved by the appellant in its failure to provide the required safety instruction."
As the learned magistrate observed in this case, the maximum fine for the offence is $150,000. The fine imposed represents 20 per cent of the amount reserved for the most serious case and/or a corporation with unlimited resources.
In this case, the degree of culpability was not great. The company had had the equipment properly installed and accepted the specifications of either the manufacturer or the contractors responsible for installation. It had ensured that there was a cage system which inhibited access. Nevertheless, the conveyor belt was inherently dangerous. It moved at 30 second intervals so a person placed as was Mr Saltmarsh would not necessarily be aware that it was still active, especially if there was other machinery noise. The equipment was capable of causing significant injury. It was susceptible to human error, as was the case. There might be good reason why each of the supervisors was distracted and believed the other to have charge of the shutting down operation. Training might have been appropriate, but the rationale for automatic safety equipment is to accommodate human error. Whilst the risk might be slight, the capacity for harm was great. This is not such a case as that considered by Underwood J in Plastic Fabrications Pty Ltd v R [1999] TASSC 95, where his Honour's said, at 17:
"In his comments on passing sentence, the learned magistrate correctly articulated the relevant factors, but fell into error in concluding therefrom that a fine in the order of $8,000 was within the range of appropriate penalties in the circumstances of this case. The work in question was not inherently dangerous. The pressure of air involved was less than that put into a bicycle tyre. The system had been in place for a long time without incident, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the disintegration of the float that injured the worker. Not only was the system in common use throughout Australia, but no alternative system was within the contemplation of the Workplace Standards Authority. No specific shortcoming on the part of the applicant was identified to the learned magistrate as constituting the breach of the statutory duty of care and upon the material in the court below, there appears to have been no reason for the applicant to anticipate the accident which occurred. The company had been carrying on business for some 25 years without prior conviction. In all these circumstances it seems to me that the imposition of a fine of anything more than a few hundred dollars at most, would reflect undefined error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. I accept that general deterrence weighs heavily in the sentencing process for offences such as this one, but even so, the sentence must not be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrongful conduct. In my opinion, the learned magistrate expressed a correct view of this matter at the contest mention hearing when he said that a possibility on a plea of guilty was that 'the matter could be adjourned under S7(f) of the Sentencing Act without conviction'. Whilst that option would certainly reflect the proper exercise of the discretion, it is not a choice I would take in this case. This is not an appropriate case in which to require the offender to give an undertaking with respect to the future because the relevant conduct had been abandoned by the time of the sentencing hearing and, as the learned magistrate found, was unlikely to be repeated. In the circumstances of this case a better approach is to record a conviction and order the discharge of the applicant as is provided by the Sentencing Act 1997, s7(g)."
The response by the company, both human and technological, was apposite and indicates responsibility which, in turn, demonstrates a lack of indifference and a lesser degree of "criminality".
If culpability alone is considered, then it could be said that a fine of $30,000 was disproportionate to the offence. But actual harm and social utility require import into the assessment of sanction. For social utility to be effective, regard must be had to the size and means of the corporation. A fine of $1,000 on an unemployed person is not to be equated with an identical amount imposed on one wealthy, but who is equally culpable. There is neither fairness nor utility in such an equivalence. XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448.
Lactos has an annual payroll of approximately $5m. It has expended some $2m in capital expenditure on safety over a four year period. Lost time accidents have been reduced from 30 in 2000 to 11 in 2001, but risen to 17 in 2002. Wages paid for workers compensation have been reduced. It is a significant corporation and any assessment of penalty ought reflect that fact.
On the above analysis, it could not be said that the amount of the fine itself shows error in the sentencing process.
Consistency and manifest error
Counsel for the appellant sought to show manifest error by reference to the range of penalties imposed by summary courts for breaches of the legislation. The list is a thorough and useful guide and the Court is obliged to Mr Williams, the public officer who compiled it and who attended the hearing of the appeal to present it. A component of counsel's argument depends on the principles associated with "justifiable grievance" (Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606) and the need for consistency (Burton v R [2002] TASSC 64), although there are many problems associated with this methodology (Franklin v R 82/1991, and see generally Burton, pars39 – 41).
An analysis of penalties imposed on corporations shows three penalties only for offences with a maximum penalty of less than $15,000 and their ratios varied between 15 per cent and 32 per cent. Apart from the prosecution in Plastic Fabrications Pty Ltd v R (supra) all prosecutions involving an offence with the maximum penalty of $150,000, resulted in fines varying from $1,500 to $40,000, averaged at 10 per cent. Eight out of the 24 exceeded that ratio, whilst three exceeded 23 per cent. Making allowance for factors such as degree of harm caused, culpability, and history and the resources of the corporation, the present ratio of 20 per cent could not of itself be said to demonstrate error. The figures suggest that courts have been reluctant to approach the maximum in their assessment of penalty, although such might be readily explained by the circumstances of each case. The exercise shows the complexity of taking the highest fine as a commencing point and contending that a particular case is not as serious. The figures themselves suggest some form of consistency or, at least, do not persuade me that the penalty here imposed shows inconsistency to a degree giving rise to a justifiable grievance. The resources and size of the company might themselves suggest reason for difference.
The motion to review ought be dismissed.
ANNEXURE A
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 12/04/1996 | Paul Robert Butler | Sec 16(a) | Swansea | Mr Butler partially felled a tree and left it and a fellow worker was hit by that tree the next day while working nearby no warning was given | $2,000 | $10,000 |
| 8/04/1997 | Ian Douglas Young | Sec 9(a)(I)(ii) & Sec 9(b) | Burnie | An employee was injured while working near 20,000 volt overhead power lines, received third degree burns and amputation of several toes. | $10,000 | $50,000 |
| 9/04/1997 | M&R Pestrucci Pty Ltd | Sec 47 | Hobart | An employee fell through an unguarded floor, penetration landing on the floor 2.4 metres below. Received fractures to neck, back and ribs. | $1,000 | $5,000 |
| 19/06/1997 | Derwent Foundry | Sec 9(2)(d) Sec 47 | Hobart | An employee was injured when his shirt caught alight while undertaking foundry duties causing extensive burns. | $3500, $500 | $150000, $5000 |
| 10/09/1997 | Tonganah Sawmillers Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) | Launceston | An employee turning flitch when he came in contact with saw, severe injuries, eventually arm was amputated | $8,000 | $150,000 |
| 19/09/1997 | Alexander Lee Cox | Sec 16(a) | Launceston | Mr Cox placed a corrosive chemical in a milk carton for the purpose of playing a prank on an employee, potentially life threatening situation. | $3,500 | $10,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 3/10/1997 | W&S Engineering (TAS) Pty Ltd - principal contractor in charge of site | Sec 9(4) | Devonport | An employee of a sub contractor fell through a roof approx 8.5 m causing a fracture to right elbow and right leg. | $7,000 | $150,000 |
| 17/10/1997 | Ian Frederick Pfeiffer | Sec 35(1) Sec 37(1) Police Offences Act | Launceston | Common assault. Destroying Property. | $400, $250 | |
| 31/10/1997 | Appollo Nominees Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(iii) | Devonport | An employee whilst using a cropping machine had finger tips of two fingers severed, warning signs on machine in German. | $20,000 Company had a previous conviction | $150,000 |
| 1/12/1997 | Robert Mckellar-Ellis | Sec 37(1)(a) | Burnie | Obstructing an Inspector | 84 hours' community service | $20,000 |
| 26/02/1998 | Tasmanian Pulp & Forest Holdings Pty Ltd | Sec 9 (2)(f)(I) | Hobart | Change in procedure in relation to isolation from power supply to conveyor. | $8,000 | $150,000 |
| 8/04/1998 | Joe White Maltings Limited | ISH&W Regulations 171(1) & 181(C) | Devonport | Did fail to provide guard for dangerous machinery. Employee received hand injuries, loss of the use of little finger left hand. | $8,000 | $25,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 14/05/1998 | Jason Scott Rowlands | ISH&W Forest Industry Regulations 1990 11(1)(a) & 11(1)(b) | Huonville | Falling a tree without notifying other people in the area and putting up barricade on road tree fell on vehicle which was crushed. Injuries to the two occupants. | $350 | $5,000 |
| 24/08/1998 | Blockmack Pty Ltd | Sec 47(b) ISH&W Regulations 1979 38(2) | Launceston | Failing to give notice of serious incident. Failing to maintain electrical equipment. An employee using vacuum cleaner received electrical shock and suffered burns and associated injuries. | Conviction recorded. No fine | $5,000 |
| 24/08/1998 | John Bernard Fahey, Managing Director of Blockmack Pty Ltd | WH&S Sec 47(b) Sect 48(1) | Launceston | Failing to give notice of serious incident. Failing to maintain electrical equipment. An employee using vacuum cleaner received electrical shock and suffered burns and associated injuries. | Conviction recorded. No fine | $2,000 |
| 17/11/1998 | Peter John Zueschner | Sec 16(a) | Burnie | Mr Zueschner, a crane driver lifted a porta loo with a boom crane into an unsafe proximity with overhead power lines. As a result two workers who were guiding the porta loo by hand received severe bodily injuries to hands and feet as electricity passed through them to the ground. | $3,000 | $10,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 22/03/1999 | Pasminco Australia Limited | Sec 9(4) | Hobart | Pasminco Australia Limited, the principal contractor failed to provide a safe working environment when hot liquid calcine was spilt onto two persons who were sub-contractors on the site, resulting in second degree burns to feet, full thickness burns to ankles and superficial burns to neck region. | $18,000 | $150,000 |
| 25/03/1999 | Plastic Fabrications Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) | Hobart | This matter involved an employee of Plastic Fabrications Pty Ltd receiving facial injuries when he was struck by an exploding float he was pressure testing at the time. | under appeal | $150,000 |
| 9/06/1999 | Mark Geoffrey Donaldson | Sec 16(a) | Launceston | A 12 year old boy was injured when his trouser leg came into contact with an unguarded power take off shaft which attached to a Grasslands roller mill on one end and a blue Ford 5000 tractor at the other end. Later, the boy's leg was amputated. | $2,000 | $10,000 |
| 8/07/1999 | MDL Logging Pty Ltd | Sec 9(2)(d) Sec 9(2)(e) | Launceston | A 19 year old was killed when a 25 metre log (cable logging operation) which was being hauled in, swung around and struck the deceased in the chest and head region. The investigation revealed the log was attached in the middle region which caused it to swing, striking the uphill bank and then the deceased. The deceased was not a safe distance away from the area. | $35,000 | $150,000 |
| 27/08/1999 | Boral Resources (Tas) Pty Ltd | Sec 20(b) | Launceston | On the 21/4/98 Boral Resources (Tas) Pty Ltd initiated a blast at its Quarry, the purpose was to widen an access road. Several pieces of fly rock were ejected from the area into the sawmill next door. | $7,500 | $50,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 21/09/1999 | Pasminco Australia Ltd t/a Pasminco Rosebery Mine | Sec 9(1)(a) | Hobart | On the 5/9/97 two employees were leaning into the skip container and the skip moved with both employees, sustaining injury. The skips had not been isolated prior to entering the lower level of the mine. Also there was a lack of guards and barriers and there was inadequate warning signs. | $5,000 | $150,000 |
| 1/12/1999 | Lend Lease Property Services Pty Ltd formally Civil & Civic Pty Ltd | Sec 9(4)(e) | Launceston | On 10/9/97 two contractors of Lend Lease Property Services suffered electrical burns and shock whilst working in a high voltage sub-station at the Starwood MDF Plant at Bell Bay. | $40,000 | $150,000 |
| 18/02/2000 | Donald Edwin Russell, Director of Russell Bros Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(iii) Sec 47(a) | Devonport | On the 15/8/98 an employee of Russell Bros Pty Ltd, whilst in the process of removing onions from a top and tail machine had her hand caught between the rollers in the machine. The accident necessitated the amputation of four fingers on her right hand and damage to the palm of the hand. There was no guard on the machine. | $5000 $250 | $50000 $2000 |
| 28/03/2000 | David Dowden | Sec 20 (C) | Devonport | On or about 19/8/98 David Dowden did spray and ignite CRC through a vent hole in a toilet door at a workplace as an employee was sitting on the toilet, causing burns to the sleeve area of the persons overalls. | Charge found proven. No conviction placed on good behaviour for 12 months. | $25,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 2/05/2000 | Devlaun Pty Ltd | Sec 9 (1)(a)(i) | Devonport | Two employees who were cleaning inside a cool room using a forklift truck received carbon monoxide poisoning. | $2,500 | $150,000 |
| 20/06/2000 | Australian Cement Holding Pty Ltd | Sec 9 (1)(c) | Devonport | A young worker had his arm caught in a running conveyor system and wasn't discovered until some 3 hours after the accident. | $10,000 | $150,000 |
| 31/07/2000 | Tamarack Pty Ltd – John Rodney Vanderwal | Sec 9 (1)(c) Sec f53(1) | Hobart | A log truck driver was struck with a log during unloading at Boyer. | $10000 $4000 | $150,000 $50,000 |
| 15/11/2000 | Craig Anthony Diston | Sec 13 | Devonport | The prosecution involved a fatality during a tree felling at the Spreyton Race Course on 20/7/99 | $5,000 | $50,000 |
| 23/11/2000 | Forth Farm Produce Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) Sec 9(1)(iii) Sec 9(1)(c). Sec 47 | Devonport | The prosecution is a result of an incident on 29 April 1999 when an employee whilst attempting to clean out then water jets of a potato washing machine slipped and fell into the machine causing his right arm to be crushed | $4,000 | $150,000 |
| 21/02/2001 | Delta Hydraulics Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(iii) Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) | Devonport | The prosecution is a result of an employee who received acid burns to the groin area, feet hands, forearms and left eye when a PVC pipe fractured whilst transferring chromic acid from a holding tank to a service tank on the 26 May 1999. | $7,500 | $150,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 21/02/2001 | John Joseph White (Managing Director) of above Company | Sec 9(1)(a)(iii) Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) | Hobart | The prosecution is a result of an employee who received acid burns to the groin area, feet , hands, forearms and left eye when a PVC pipe fractured whilst transferring chromic acid from a holding tank to a service tank on the 26 May 1999. | $1,000 | $50,000 |
| 2/05/2001 | Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd | Sec 9(4) | Launceston | The prosecution is a result of a fatality of an employee on the 18/2/00 whilst working at the workplace of Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd situated at Birralee Road, Westbury. The employee was at the time employed by Skilled Engineering who were engaged by Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd to carry out in part welding of a threaded sleeve to a pipe work connected to a tank. | $30,000 | $150,000 |
| 28/06/2001 | Kevoral Rueben Marshall | Sec 9(1)(a)(ii) & Sec 48 | Devonport | The prosecution is a result of an incident on 18/10/99 at East Devonport when an employee was cutting tops out of 44 gallon drums with an oxyacetylene torch when there was an explosion and an ensuring fire. The employee sustained injuries from the incident. | $3,500 global fine | $50,000 $2,000 |
| 9/08/2001 | Brisam Pty Ltd trading as Instant Scaffold | Section 14 | Hobart | The prosecution is as a result of the erection of a scaffold on 25 Feb 2000 which was not safe for use and the scaffolder failed to inspect the scaffold prior to passing it safe for use. | $10,000 | $150,000 |
| Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 | ||||||
| Date of Conviction | Defendant | Section | Court | Brief Details | Penalty | Maximum Penalty |
| 9/08/2001 | Peter Graham Di Martino | Section 16 | Hobart | The prosecution is as a result of the erection of a scaffold on 25 Feb 2000 which was not safe for use and the scaffolder failed to inspect the scaffold prior to passing it safe for use. | $3,000 | $10,000 |
| 16/10/2001 | Webster Limited | Sec 9(1)(a)(iii) | Hobart | The prosecution is as a result of accident to am employee at a walnut farm at Swansea. At the time of the accident the employee was working on the back of a hopper attached to a tractor for the purposes of injecting gypsum into the soil. The hopper was unguarded and bolts which had protruding heads were fastening the augur to the drive shaft. Later the employee's jumper became caught in the augur bolts which caused severe damage to his left arm. | $4,000 | $150,000 |
| 31/10/2001 | Williams Quarry Pty Ltd | Sec 9(1)(a)(ii), 9(a)(iii), 9(1)(c) | Burnie | The charges relate to an incident on the 13/9/99 on the west coast when an employee was working for Williams Quarry Pty Ltd on a crushing plant. The plant was experiencing problems and when the employee attempted to fix the problem his right hand became trapped in the drum of the conveyor belt of the crushing plant. | $15,000 | $150,000 |
| 10/07/2002 | Gregory James House | Sec 20(c) | Burnie | The prosecution relates to an incident on the 25th of September whilst an employee at the Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd was filling a LPG cylinder and left it unattended for approx 3 hours, the LPG escaping into the atmosphere. | $2,000 | $25,000 |
4
4
1