SafeWork NSW v Miroslav Davidovic

[2019] NSWDC 597

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

SafeWork NSW v Miroslav DAVIDOVIC [2019] NSWDC 597

Hearing dates:

11, 12, 13 and 21 June 2019

Date of orders:

24 October 2019

Decision date:

24 October 2019

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Strathdee, DCJ

Decision:

(1)   The defendant is convicted.

 

(2)   The appropriate fine in matter number 2018/184262 is $1,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. The appropriate fine in matter number 2018/184282 is $2,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. I impose a fine of $2,250 in total.

 

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

 (4)   I order the defendant to pay the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking a business – duty of employers – risk of death or serious injury
SENTENCE – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – fine – capacity to pay – circumstances – objective seriousness – specific deterrence – general deterrence – appropriate penalty
SENTENCE PRINCIPLES – parity – totality – community values – remorse – contrition

Legislation Cited:

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

Cases Cited:

Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71 (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Inspector Beacham v J & L Marble Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIR Comm 100
Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178
McColl v John Watson Building Services Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIR Comm 353; (2004) 137 IR 310
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 96

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

SafeWork New South Wales (Prosecutor)
Miroslav Davidovic (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr C Magee appeared for the Prosecutor
Mr M Davidovic appeared unrepresented, in person

  Solicitors:
SafeWork NSW Legal Services (Prosecutor)
Mr M Davidovic unrepresented, in person (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2018/184282 and 2018/184262

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

1. Miroslav Davidovic (‘the defendant’) pleaded not guilty to a charge that being a person conducting a business or undertaking who had a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Work Health & Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’) to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking, he did fail to comply with that duty and the failure to comply with that duty exposed Mr Christopher Winn (‘Mr Winn’) to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Act.

2. On 24 June 2016 Mr Winn was seriously injured at the premises of the defendant’s business or undertaking at Lot 1/3 Canterbury Road, Unanderra, (also referred to as ‘22 Canterbury Road, Kembla Grange’) in the state of New South Wales (‘the premises’). He was loading steel beams onto a flat top trailer truck, with the assistance of a crane, when the crane came into contact with a beam and fell onto his legs pinning them against another steel beam on the trailer.

3. Following 4 days of hearing, I entered a verdict of not guilty with respect to that charge. My judgment was delivered on 2 August 2019.

4. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to an offence pursuant to s 43(1) of the Act, namely that he carried out a class of high risk work at a workplace, namely ‘Dogging work’, without being authorised to do so in that he did not hold a prescribed high risk work licence for ‘Dogging work’ as required by clause 81 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.

5. During the course of the trial the defendant entered a plea of guilty to an offence pursuant to s 43(2) of the Act, in that being a person conducting a business or undertaking, contrary to s 43(2) of the Act, he allowed a worker to carry out a class of high risk work at a workplace, namely ‘Dogging work’, without the worker holding a prescribed high risk work licence as required by clause 81 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011. This plea was to an Amended Summons that charged that the defendant permitted Mr Zugic to do the relevant work, but deleted the term ‘directed’ Mr Zugic to do the work.

6. The maximum fine for the s 43(1) offence for an individual is $20,000. The maximum fine for the s 43(2) offence for an individual is $20,000.

FACTS

7. An Agreed Statement of Facts was presented by the parties and it can be summarised as follows.

8. The defendant conducted a business which involved activities and tasks associated with the removal of steel beams from the premises. The defendant engaged Realta Enterprises Pty Ltd (‘Realta’) to provide a crane and a crane operator to lift the steel beams and load them onto trucks with flat top trailers for transporting from the premises.

9. Realta provided a crane and on 24 June 2016 provided a crane operator, Mark Barnsley (‘Mr Barnsley’), to operate the Crane and assist with the loading of the beams onto the trailers. Mr Barnsley had approximately 18 months experience in operating cranes and held the following licences: Tower Crane, Slewing Mobile Crane, Boom Type Elevating Work Platform and Dogging.

10. Realta were of the understanding that the defendant would supply a licenced dogman on 24 June 2016 to assist with the slinging techniques to move the beams.

11. On 24 June 2016 the defendant engaged Tuntow Pty Ltd, trading as Metal Transport Industries (‘MTI’), to supply two prime movers and flat top trailers (trucks) and drivers to transport the steel beams from the premises to Realta’s holding yard on Princess Highway, Unanderra (‘the destination site’).

12. MTI subcontracted truck drivers, Mr Winn and William Kelton (‘Mr Kelton’), to transport the steel beams. Mr Winn was an owner-driver with 20 years of experience and was operating as CKW Transport Pty Ltd. Mr Kelton was an owner-driver with 40 years of experience and was operating as Kenora Pty Ltd.

13. The defendant engaged Mark Simson Earthmoving (‘MSE’) to provide a 30 tonne excavator to unload the steel beams from the trucks at the destination site.

14. The defendant also engaged Damjan Zugic (‘Mr Zugic’) to assist with the activities and tasks associated with the removal of the steel beams from the premises. Mr Zugic was employed by Obnova Concrete Construction Pty Limited (‘Obnova’). Mr Zugic was a concreter for Obnova.

WORK DONE ON 22 JUNE 2016

15. On 22 June 2016, Mr Zugic attended the premises to assist the defendant with the preparations for the removal of the steel beams. Mr Zugic assisted Mr Winn with the test lift at the premises, and he was to act as the dogman during the test lift. As Mr Zugic did not have experience in loading beams onto trucks, Mr Winn demonstrated to Mr Zugic how to sling beams up onto a trailer.

WORK DONE ON 24 JUNE 2016

16. At approximately 9:00 am the defendant instructed Mr Winn, Mr Kelton and Mr Barnsley at the workplace that he needed six beams to be loaded onto Mr Winn’s trailer. Mr Zugic was also present at the workplace and assisted with the task of the removal of the six beams from the workplace.

17. The beams were typically an ‘H’ or ‘I’ beam profile, approximately 270mm wide, 760mm high and 11.8 metres long. The beams weighed between 2 to 2.7 tonnes each.

18. On 24 June 2016 the defendant undertook the role of dogman undertaking the ‘Dogging work’ required for the loading of the first three beams onto Mr Winn’s trailer.

19. The defendant undertook the task of selection and inspection of lifting gear to be used to sling the beams from the crane. The defendant provided the lifting lugs to be used for the lifts.

20. The defendant then used slinging techniques to attach the lifting gear to the crane. The defendant hooked up the first three beams that were loaded onto the trailer with the assistance of Mr Zugic. Mr Zugic assisted with the chaining of the steel beams with the defendant overseeing that the chains were correctly installed.

21. The beams were lifted by the crane with the chains that the defendant had affixed.

22. The defendant then provided direction to the crane operator, Mr Barnsley, in respect to the loading by the crane of the first three beams onto Mr Winn’s flat top trailer.

23. On 24 June 2016 the defendant did not hold a high risk work licence for the class of high risk work, namely ‘Dogging work’.

24. The use of the crane and the need for ‘Dogging work’ as defined by clause 5 of the Regulation was deemed to be high risk work (‘HRW’) under the Act. ‘Dogging work’ under the Regulation means;

‘(a)   the application of slinging techniques, including the selection and inspection of lifting gear, to safely sling a load, or

(b)   the directing of a plant operator in the movement of a load when the load is out of the operator’s view.’

25. As at 24 June 2016 the defendant did not hold a valid HRW licence for ‘Dogging work’, and accordingly he was not authorised to undertake ‘Dogging work’ on that day in relation to the loading of the beams. He had previously held such a licence, but it had expired.

26. Mr Zugic did not hold the relevant HRW licence to perform any ‘Dogging work’ on 24 June 2016 and had never held such a licence, and was similarly not authorised to do the ‘Dogging work’.

27. Before he left the workplace, the defendant instructed Mr Winn and Mr Kelton to load another layer of beams on top of the three beams that were already on the trailer.

THE INCIDENT

28. Mr Kelton and Mr Winn discussed the loading process and it was agreed that they would load the last three beams vertically rather than flat as per the bottom three beams.

29. After the defendant left the site, Mr Zugic took over the Dogging duties and hooked up beams to load onto the trailer. Mr Zugic attached the chains and clamps to each of beams 4, 5 and 6. Mr Zugic also used a rope tied to the end of each of the beams so that the beams did not take off in the wind when the crane slewed around to place the beams on the trailer.

30. Mr Winn, having formed the view after previously observing Mr Zugic performing the ‘Dogging work’ that Mr Zugic had no experience in loading trucks, made a decision to get on the trailer to assist with the landing of the beams onto the trailer.

31. After the loading of beam 4, Mr Kelton left the site to move his truck as it was parked across a driveway.

32. Beams 4 and 5 were loaded onto the trailer and placed vertically on top of beams 1 and 2. Beam 6 was loaded onto the trailer by the crane and placed against the furthest edge of beam 3.

33. As beam 6 was being loaded onto the trailer Mr Winn was standing on the trailer between beams 4 and 5, and as the defendant had left the site, beams 5 and 6 were chained by Mr Zugic alone. The defendant permitted Mr Zugic to undertake the ‘Dogging work’ for the remainder of the three beams.

34. Mr Winn had been assisting with the process of guiding the placement of the load. After beam 6 had been landed on beam 3, it became unsteady and toppled over and came into contact with beam 5.

35. As a consequence, beam 5 moved and crushed Mr Winn’s legs between beams 4 and 5. Beam 5 was on Mr Winn and Beam 6 was leaning against beam 5.

36. Mr Winn screamed out and Mr Zugic and Mr Barnsley were alerted.

37. Mr Barnsley then grabbed the chains that were attached to the crane’s hook and put the chain around beam 6. He then returned to the crane and operated it such that beam 6 was lifted off the trailer and swung away from the trailer and into the bush.

38. Mr Barnsley then told Mr Zugic to remove the chains from beam 6 and put onto beam 5. Mr Zugic did so, and at this point Mr Winn’s upper body was slumped on top of beam 5.

39. Mr Barnsley then used the crane to lift beam 5 off the trailer, and Mr Winn’s body remained slumped on top of beam 5 with his legs hanging off the end. Beam 5 was then lowered to the ground.

40. Emergency services attended and Mr Winn was taken to Kembla Grange racecourse, and was then airlifted to St George Hospital.

INJURIES

41. Mr Winn sustained serious injuries to his knees and feet, which required surgery and ultimately both knees were reconstructed. He was hospitalised for approximately 12 weeks and has been unable to work since the incident.

SYSTEMS OF WORK AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT

42. The only Safe Work Method Statement (‘SWMS’) that was available on the day of the incident was the one that was prepared by Realta. It was undated, however, it was for the task of ‘Lift Steel on Truck’ for the project address of ‘Canterbury Rd’ and was available in the cab of Realta’s crane operated by Mr Barnsley.

43. The SWMS provided the following control measures:

‘Qualified Dogman only to rig load. All lifting gear certified and checked before using, all unauthorised personnel to be kept clear of exclusion zones by dogman, no beams to be lifted over other personnel assisting.’

44. The defendant did not have a SWMS for the work to be performed as at June 2016. He did not conduct a risk assessment or implement any reasonably necessary control measures before trying to move the beams.

45. The defendant did not hold a valid HRW licence on the relevant days. It has been conceded by the prosecution that the defendant had previously held such licence, but that it had expired.

46. The industry guidance material published by SafeWork Australia provides advice on managing risks associated with operating cranes in the workplace and was freely available via its website at the time of the incident.

47. The detailed information and guidance on the use of cranes included:

1. General Guide for Cranes.

2. Guide to Inspecting and Maintaining Cranes.

3. Guide to Mobile Cranes.

4. Vehicle Loading Cranes and Information Sheet.

5. High Risk Work Licensing for Dogging Information Sheet.

48. A ‘High Risk Work Licensing for Dogging Information Sheet’ was available as at 24 June 2106. This document provided information on ‘Dogging work’ and specifically information on when a HRW Dogging licence was required to carry out ‘Dogging work’. It stated that:

‘Dogging work can only be done without a Dogging HRW licence if the worker;

*   Is doing the dogging work while enrolled in a Dogging HRW licence training course; and

*   Is under the supervision of a licenced dogger.

Note; A plant operator can also be a licenced dogger. However, when moving load, the plant operator cannot supervise a worker enrolled in a training course because the plant operator would be at the crane controls and therefore unable to effectively supervise the worker.’

49. The work that was being performed was a high risk activity and prescribed that the operator must have a HRW licence.

PRIOR HISTORY

50. The defendant has not previously appeared before the courts on health and safety matters, and co-operated with the SafeWork investigation.

CONSIDERATIONS

51. I have had regard to the objectives set out in section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (‘CSP Act’) for the purpose of sentencing.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE

52. The duties of the defendant require that it ensure that the health and safety of workers is protected as far as is reasonably practicable. As the defendant has pleaded guilty, he has admitted that the measures to ensure safety would have been reasonably practicable.

53. Although the gravity of the risk, degree of foreseeability of the risk and the ease of implementation of remedial measures are relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness, I am not limited to taking in to account such factors.

54. In Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 96 at [34] Basten JA explained the approach to sentencing as follows:

‘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 to guard against 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. (Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 at [34].’

…..’

55. The alternative was also a simple step – the defendant could have prohibited the work being performed until someone with a valid HRW licence was on site to assist with the work. He could have not undertaken the work himself until his licence was renewed.

56. The prosecution submits that the defendant was aware that his licence had expired and points to documents that convince me that in some point of time some years before the incident the defendant was aware that his licence was not valid.

57. However, the prosecution concedes that although not licensed as at June 2016 the defendant was experienced in ‘Dogging work’.

58. With regard to the work that the defendant permitted Mr Zugic to do, the defendant was also aware that Mr Zugic did not hold the relevant licence. The prosecution however accepts that on 24 June 2016 the defendant did not direct Mr Zugic to do the work alone, and on that basis it is not such an egregious failure as there was some level of supervision of Mr Zugic.

59. The prosecution also submitted that I can take into account the fact that Mr Zugic had undertaken the work on 22 June 2016 and that he had to be shown how to do that work by Mr Winn.

60. To my mind, the s 43(2) offence is more serious than the s 43(1) offence. The defendant knew that Mr Zugic was not licensed to do HRW yet the defendant permitted him to do so. He was, however, supervised by the truck drivers in moving the beams on 24 June 2016.

61. I accept that the conduct of the defendant is more serious on 24 June 2016 as he was not on site when the accident happened and therefore he was not supervising Mr Zugic as he had been on 22 June 2016.

62. I note, however, the prosecutor concedes that the injuries sustained by Mr Winn on 24 June 2016 were not as a consequence of the defendant’s conduct as referenced by these charges.

63. These factors, the prosecution submitted, point to potential risks to safety, which I accept and thus are key matters that go to the objective seriousness of the offences.

DETERRENCE

64. In fixing a penalty in relation to this offence, an important objective feature is the need for specific and general deterrence. This is enshrined in s 3A(b) of the CSP Act. The approach to be adopted is set out in Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71 (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 at 644 [74];

‘Both aspects of deterrence are matters which should normally be given weight of some substance in the sentencing process; and although there may be some exceptional cases (see, for example, Page v Walco Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd (No2) [2000] NSWIRComm 39 at [40]-[43] we would expect such cases to be very rare, and where the relevant circumstances were held by the sentencing judge to be established, the judge must indicate with some precision the circumstances which had led to the exceptional course being adopted.’

65. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 cited with approval the decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of NSW in Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Mayo-Ramsay), [177]-[180] which reaffirmed the principle that both aspects of deterrence are matters which should be normally given weight of some substance in the sentencing process, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would allow a Court to depart from this rule:

‘It follows that both aspects of deterrence [specific and general] are matters which should normally be given weight of some substance in the sentencing process; and although there may be exceptional cases (see, for example, WorkCover Authority (NSW) (Inspector Page) v. Walco Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2000] NSWIRComm 39 at 40-43), we would expect such cases to be very rare and where the relevant circumstances were held by the sentencing judge to be established, the judge must indicate with some precision the circumstances which had led to the exceptional course being adopted. …’

‘Even where an offender demonstrates good character or a commitment to rehabilitation, the court may be obliged to have regard to the need for general deterrence; see R v Thompson (1975) 11 SASR 217 at 222. This is particularly so where the offence in question is prevalent in society and represents a serious threat to the community. The need for general deterrence in relation to serious offences under the Act is undeniable.’

66. In relation to specific deterrence, the attitude of the defendant to questions of workplace safety and any steps taken to improve the safety following a breach of a duty are relevant, as is the propensity for the offender to reoffend. Given the subsequent behaviour of the defendant after the incident occurred, I accept that he is unlikely to reoffend.

67. The requirement to comply with the expectation of the community, that both large and small employers will comply with safety requirements, means that employers must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. However, whilst general deterrence is a matter that I must consider in the sentencing process, it is not a factor to dominate the exercise of my discretion.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

68. The injuries sustained by Mr Winn were severe and necessitated a prolonged period of hospitalisation and rehabilitation.

MITIGATING FACTORS

69. The defendant entered a plea of guilty at an early stage with regard to the s43(1) charge, and is entitled to a discount of 25% based on the utilitarian value of the plea (s 21A(3)(e)). The defendant entered a plea to the s 43(2) charge during the trial, however it was to an Amended Summons, and for that reason I am of the view that he is entitled to a similar discount for the utility of the plea.

70. The defendant does not have any antecedents (s 21A(3)(e)).

71. The defendant co-operated with the SafeWork investigation (s 21A(3)(m)).

72. The defendant through his conduct has shown remorse and I accept that as genuine (s 21A(3)(h)).

CAPACITY TO PAY

73. Section 6 of the Fines Act 1996 provides as follows:

‘6   CONSIDERATION OF ACCUSED’S MEANS TO PAY

In the exercise by a court of a discretion to fix the amount of any fine, the court is required to consider:

(a) Such information regarding the means of the accused as is reasonably and practicably available to the court for consideration, and

(b) Such other matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant to the fixing of that amount.’

74. The onus is on the offender to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities as to the truth of such evidence and its relevance to the fixing of penalty: McColl v John Watson Building Services Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIR Comm 353; (2004)137 IR 310 at 224. The offender’s capacity to pay is relevant but not decisive: Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178 at [16].

75. In Inspector Beacham v J & L Marble Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIR Comm 100, Staff J said at [57]-[58]:

‘The principles to be applied in respect of an application under s 6 of the Fines Act were discussed by Walton J, Vice-President in WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Farrell) v Schrader (2002) 112 IR 284 are as follows:

‘[83] The financial means of the defendant was a matter that was submitted in mitigation of penalty. In this regard I would adopt what I stated in Department of Mineral Resources v A M Hoipo & Sons (at par 50):

'It is proper, nonetheless, to have regard to the financial position and means of the defendant when considering the question of penalty: see Ferguson v Nelmac Pty Ltd (1999) 94 IR 188 at 209. The purpose of a fine is primarily to punish the offender. The burden which will be imposed by virtue of a fine at a particular level will, to some extent, depend upon the financial circumstances and resources of that offender. As a result, the amount and method of payment of a fine will need to take into account, as (2002) 112 IR 284 at 309 far as practicable, the financial resources and income of the defendant: see R v Sgroi (1989) 40 A Crim R 197 at 200-201.'

[84] This approach was subsequently adopted in Manpac Industries where the Full Bench of this Court stated (at pars 81-82):

'... Section 6 of the Fines Act 1996 provides that in exercising a discretion to fix the amount of any fine a court is required to consider the means of the accused and such other matters as are relevant to the fixing of that amount. That statutory injunction, of course, has long been recognised as an appropriate part of the sentencing process: see, for instance, Warman International (80 IR at 339); WorkCover Authority (NSW) (Inspector Dowling) v Overtop Pty Ltd (1998) 86 IR 319 at 333; and Profab Industries (49 NSWLR at 714; 100 IR at 76).’

However, and given the primacy of the objective seriousness of an offence in determining an appropriate sentence, the financial situation of a defendant, in our view, needs to be carefully scrutinised. In Ferguson v Nelmac Pty Ltd (1999) 92 IR 188 at 209 - 210, Wright J, President observed:

'... Whilst I accept that the imposition of heavy fines would be a burden on the defendant and its financial resources and that consideration should be given appropriate weight on the question of penalty, it does not necessarily result in the Court not imposing a heavy penalty. ......

When viewed in the context of the statutory mandate in s 15 the offences were very serious and provided proper weight is given to the subjective considerations and insofar as deterrence is concerned some tempering thereof, the penalty should reflect the objective seriousness of the offence. ...'

I would reiterate what the Court stated in WorkCover Authority (NSW) (Inspector Ankucic) v Lyndhurst Trading Co Pty Ltd (2000) 95 IR 462 at 476:

'Where the means of the defendant to pay any fine is raised, the proper course will be to assess the appropriate amount of the fine having regard to the gravity of the offence charged and then reduce the fine to take into account the defendant's means and impecuniosity: see R v Rahme (1989) 43 A Crim R 81 at 86.'’

76. The defendant has not provided evidence of his current financial circumstances, nor that of his business. In his written submissions he explains that he is under financial strain, and will need to borrow the money to pay the fine.

77. Whilst I do not believe that what the defendant says about his financial circumstances is untrue, he bears the onus of satisfying me that he is unable to pay any fines, and I am not so satisfied.

78. In all the circumstances, taking into account the discount for the early pleas of guilty and the totality principle, I think the appropriate penalty in the matters are as follows:

1. In matter number 2018/184262 - $1,000 to be discounted by 25% for the early plea.

2. In matter number 2018/184282 - $2,000 to be discounted by 25% for the early plea.

COSTS

79. The defendant is to pay the prosecution’s costs and disbursements as agreed or assessed.

PENALTY

80. My orders are:

1. The defendant is convicted.

2. The appropriate fine in matter number 2018/184262 is $1,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. The appropriate fine in matter number 2018/184282 is $2,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. I impose a fine of $2,250 in total.

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

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

******************************

Decision last updated: 24 October 2019