Orr v LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 3)

[2019] NSWDC 402

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Orr v LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 3) [2019] NSWDC 402

Hearing dates:

5 August 2019

Date of orders:

09 August 2019

Decision date:

09 August 2019

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Russell SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   The defendant is convicted.
(2)   Order the defendant to pay a fine of $180,000.
(3) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(4)   Order the defendant to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or as assessed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – risk of death or serious injury

 

SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – general deterrence – specific deterrence – appropriate penalty

 

COSTS - prosecution costs

  OTHER – underground coal mine – collisions between transport vehicle and roof infrastructure – resulting fracture of W-strap – driver of transport vehicle injured by damaged W-strap

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176
Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96
Orr v LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 360
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
Veen v the Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Nomchong SC (Prosecutor)

  Solicitors:
Lander & Rogers (Prosecutor)

File Number(s):

2018/23681

Judgment

1. LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (the offender) has been found guilty of an offence that as a person who had a work health and safety duty pursuant to s 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act) it failed to comply with that duty and thereby exposed Mr Benjamin Pedersen to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Act – Orr v LakeCoal Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 360 (the Primary Judgment).

2. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1,500,000.

Background

3. The facts which form the basis for the change are to be found at paras [121]-[184] of the Primary Judgment.

4. The liquidator was on notice of the hearing but did not appear, so there was no evidence from the defendant to be considered.

Consideration

5. I have had regard to the objects in s 3 of the Act and the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Objective seriousness of the offence

6. The proportionality principle requires that a sentence should neither exceed nor be less than the gravity of the crime having regard to the objective circumstances: Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 472, 485-6, 490-1 and 496. At common law, the term “objective circumstances” was used to describe the circumstances of the crime. The gravity of the offence was assessed by reference to its objective seriousness: R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [15].

7. The task requires the court to consider where in the range of conduct covered by the offence the conduct of the offender falls: Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51 at 57. This assessment will generally indicate the appropriate range of sentences available which will reflect the objective seriousness of the offence committed, and set the limits within which a sentence proportional to the criminality of the defendant will lie: BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 at [70].

8. The sentencing judge should take into account not only the conduct which actually constitutes the crime, but also such of the surrounding circumstances as are directly related to that crime and are properly regarded as circumstances of aggravation or mitigation: R v Wilkinson(No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 at [61].

9. The existence of a reasonably foreseeable risk to safety that is likely to result in serious injury or death is a factor relative to the gravity of the offence: Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 at [82]. The question of foreseeability of the risk is to be determined objectively.

10. The court must identify all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and then make a value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120. This approach to sentencing, known as the “instinctive synthesis” approach, involves the making of a global judgment without any attempt to state precisely how any given factor has influenced the judgment.

11. The Court of Criminal Appeal has recently examined the sentencing process with regard to the Act in the matter of Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96. His Honour Justice Basten at paragraph 34, under the heading ‘Assessment of Risk’ said:

“The sentencing judge commenced his consideration with the proposition that ‘greater culpability attaches to the failure to guard against an event the occurrence of which is probable rather than an event the occurrence of which is extremely unlikely’. However the truth of that proposition depends upon other considerations including:

(a)   the potential consequences of the risk, which may be mild or catastrophic;

(b)   the availability of steps to lessen, minimise or remove the risk; and

(c)   whether such steps are complex and burdensome or only mildly inconvenient. Relative culpability depends on assessment of all those factors.”

12. Further at paragraph 42 his Honour continued:

“The culpability of the Respondent is not necessarily to be determined by the remoteness of the risk occurring, nor by a step‑by‑step assessment of the various elements. Culpability will turn upon an overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions. Culpability in this case is reasonably high because, even if the pressure event of the force which occurred might not be expected to occur often, the seriousness of the foreseeable resultant harm is extreme and the steps to be taken to avoid it, were not even assessed, were straightforward and involved only minor inconvenience and little, if any, costs.”

13. At paragraph 53 his Honour dealt with the proper approach to considering the objective seriousness of offences under the Act, saying:

“It is important to note that the risk to be assessed is not the risk of the consequence, to the extent that a worker is in fact injured, but is the risk arising from the failure to take reasonably practicable steps to avoid the injury occurring. To discount the seriousness of the risk by reference to the unlikelihood of injury resulting is apt to lead to error. The conduct in question is the failure to respond to a risk of injury, conduct which will be more serious, the more serious the potential injuries, whether or not they are likely to materialize. The objective seriousness of the conduct will also be affected by the ease with which mitigating steps could have been taken.”

14. My findings about the offender’s level of culpability are based upon the following:

1. The hazard of collision with the roof infrastructure causing damage was foreseeable, and was actually known by the offender prior to 22 January 2016;

2. The hazard was identified in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 WRACs;

3. In spite of identifying the hazard, the offender had not implemented any of the controls that it had identified as necessary to address the hazard and the risk;

4. While a risk of death or serious injury is an element of the offence, the extent of the harm suffered by the injured worker is a relevant matter in assessing objective seriousness. Mr Pedersen suffered a serious laceration with ongoing scarring and pain;

5. There was a complete failure by the offender to act proactively to ensure that the risk controls, that it had identified in the WRACs, were implemented;

6. There is no evidence as to why those measures had not been carried out;

7. Mr Pedersen was not given any instruction, training or warning regarding roof height, or dimensions of underground roadways, or that there was a possibility of contact with the roof or plant attached to it;

8. The steps which could and should have been taken by the offender were simple, practicable and relatively inexpensive. These matters were established by the expert evidence of Mr Wagstaffe;

9. The steps taken by the offender after the accident demonstrate that there were reasonably practicable and relatively inexpensive measures which could and should have been taken by the offender, and which if taken, would have resulted in Mr Pedersen not being exposed to the risk.

15. I find that the offender’s level of culpability is in the mid-range.

Deterrence

16. The penalty imposed in relation to this offence must provide for general deterrence. Employers must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. The community is entitled to expect that both small and large employers will comply with safety requirements. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 at [180].

17. Underground mining operations can be very dangerous, when safety precautions are not observed. Operators in the mining industry generally, and in underground mining operations, must observe their work, health and safety duties, because of the significant risks involved. General deterrence is an important factor when an offence is committed in an underground mine. The mine in which the accident occurred is still in operation, in the hands of a new operator.

18. Given that the offender is in liquidation, there is little role for specific deterrence.

Aggravating factors

19. The injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was substantial: s 21A(2)(g) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Mitigating factors

20. The offender has no record of previous convictions: s 21A(3)(e) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

21. The offender gave assistance to law enforcement authorities: s 21A(3)(m) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender co-operated at all times with the prosecutor and provided all documents requested in a prompt fashion.

Costs

22. It is appropriate to make an order that the offender is to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Penalty

23. My orders are:

1. The defendant is convicted.

2. Order the defendant to pay a fine of $180,000.

3. Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

4. Order the defendant to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

**********

Amendments

13 August 2019 - Corrected representation of Prosecutor

Decision last updated: 13 August 2019