SafeWork NSW v Epic Machinery Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Epic Machinery Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 398
Hearing dates: 11 August 2021
Date of orders: 13 August 2021
Decision date: 13 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Strathdee DCJ
Decision:

(1)   The defendant is convicted.

(2)   The appropriate fine is $200,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the early plea.

(3)   Accordingly, I order the defendant pay a fine of $150,000.00.

(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor.

(5) Pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s costs agreed in the sum of $43,247.20.

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 – plea of guilty – general deterrence – specific deterrence – capacity to pay – totality of sentence - appropriate sentence

OTHER – s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Fines Act 1996 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bulga Underground Operations v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338

Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610

Environmental Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246

Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384

Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531

Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464

Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357

Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 147 IR 117

Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96

Orbit Drilling v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399

R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304

R v MA [2004] NSWCCA 92

R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68

R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272

R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 398

SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632

SafeWork NSW v Poletti Corporation [2019] NSWDC 491

Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700

WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151

Texts Cited:

Australian Standard, AS 4024 (Series) Safety of Machinery

SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, Managing the risk of plant in the workplace (July 2014)

Category:Sentence
Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Epic Machinery Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Moir, for the Prosecutor
Mr P Skinner, for the Defendant

Solicitors:
Mr J Bell Department of Customer Service (for the Prosecutor)
Mr K Rodgers, Brock Partners (for the Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/209185
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. On 3 May 2021, Epic Machinery Pty Ltd (‘Epic’) entered a plea of guilty in respect of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SafeWork NSW v Epic Machinery Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWDC 398
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SafeWork NSW prosecuted Epic Machinery Pty Ltd for breaches of work health and safety laws under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). The dispute arose from incidents that led to the death of an employee, with allegations that the company had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of its workers. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether the company had breached its duty under section 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), and if so, the appropriate sentence. The company pleaded guilty to the charges, and the court considered factors such as the objective seriousness of the offence, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the company’s capacity to pay, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court found the offences to be of high objective seriousness due to the death resulting from the breaches. It took into account the early guilty plea as a mitigating factor, reducing the fine by 25%. Despite the company’s significant financial capacity, the court imposed a fine of $150,000.00, with 50% of this amount payable to the prosecutor, and ordered the company to pay the prosecutor’s costs of $43,247.20. The sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and the need to deter future breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant is convicted.

(2) The appropriate fine is $200,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the early plea.

(3) Accordingly, I order the defendant pay a fine of $150,000.00.

(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor.

(5) Pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s costs agreed in the sum of $43,247.20.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.