District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 243 Hearing dates: 17 June 2024 Date of orders: 27 June 2024 Decision date: 27 June 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Russell SC DCJ Decision: In District Court Proceedings 2022/387576 being a charge under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):
(1) Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $240,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the early plea of guilty.
(3) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $180,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor’s costs.
In District Court Proceedings 2022/287552 being a charge under s 46 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):
(1) Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $20,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $15,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor’s costs.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – risk of death or serious injury
CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty to consult – duty to co-operate – duty to co-ordinate
SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – plea of guilty – general deterrence – specific deterrence – capacity to pay appropriate penalty
COSTS – prosecution costs
OTHER – quad bike – worker rode onto irrigation dam wall – bike tipped over – worker struck and trapped – no operator protective devices on quad bike – not required to wear helmet – no quad bike exclusion zones
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22
Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6, 122
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32, 46
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
Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SafeWork NSW v Integrated Agricultural Developments 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 243
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had contravened the statutory duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) by failing to ensure the health and safety of workers and whether these failures were serious enough to warrant criminal penalties. The court needed to assess whether the defendant had adequately consulted, co-operated, and co-ordinated to mitigate the risks associated with the use of the quad bike on the property. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the contraventions, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the impact of the defendant's early guilty plea on sentencing.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd had indeed breached its duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The court emphasised the significant risks involved in the operation of the quad bike without appropriate safety measures and the failure to enforce the wearing of protective gear. The court imposed fines for the breaches, reducing them by 25% to account for the defendant's early guilty plea. The court ordered the defendant to pay $180,000 for the first charge and $15,000 for the second charge, with half of each fine going to the prosecutor. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the prosecution costs. The decision underscores the importance of stringent compliance with work health and safety regulations to prevent serious injuries and the potential criminal liability for non-compliance.
Orders
Orders of the court
In District Court Proceedings 2022/387576 being a charge under s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):
(1) Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $240,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the early plea of guilty.
(3) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $180,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor’s costs.
In District Court Proceedings 2022/287552 being a charge under s 46 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW):
(1) Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine is $20,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $15,000.
(4) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Order Integrated Agricultural Developments Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor’s costs.
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.