SafeWork NSW v MJM Painting Services Pty Limited; SafeWork NSW v Miro Maric

[2019] NSWDC 124

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	SafeWork NSW v MJM Painting Services Pty Limited; SafeWork NSW v Miro Maric [2019] NSWDC 124
Hearing dates:	5 April 2019
Date of orders:	15 April 2019
Decision date:	15 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Strathdee, DCJ
Decision:	IN RELATION TO MJM PAINTING SERVICES PTY LIMITED: (1)   The offender is convicted. (2)   The appropriate fine is $250,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. (3)   Order the offender to pay a fine of $187,500. (4) I order pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of that fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. (5)   I order the offender to pay the prosecutors costs in the sum of $45,000.00  IN RELATION TO MIRO MARIC: (1)   The offender is convicted. (2)   The appropriate fine is $50,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty. (3)   Order the offender to pay a fine of $37,500. (4) I order pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 that 50% of that fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health & 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 – appropriate penalty COSTS – prosecution costs
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 WorkCover NSW Code of Practice
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 Howard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIRComm 92 Morrison v Waratah; Morrison v Powercoal (2005) Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96; 93 NSWLR 388
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	SafeWork New South Wales (Prosecutor) MJM Painting Services Pty Limited (Defendant) Miro Maric (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Magee appeared for the Prosecutor Mr N Read appeared for the Defendants   Solicitors: SafeWork NSW Legal Services (Prosecutor) Coleman Greig Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2081/57489 and 2018/56536
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. On 22 October 2018 MJM Painting Services Pty Limited (‘MJM’) pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s.32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), being a person conducting a business or undertaking who had a health and safety duty under s 19(1) of the Act, to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers while the workers are at work in the MJM’s business or undertaking, did fail to comply with that duty and the failure to comply with that duty exposed Peter Posa (‘Posa’) to a risk of death or serious injury.

2. This offence, in the case of a corporation, carries the maximum penalty of $1,500,000.

3. On 22 February 2016 at 330 Church Street, Parramatta in New South Wales, Miro Maric (‘Maric’), being a person who had a health and safety duty under section 27 of the Act to exercise due diligence to ensure MJM Painting Services Pty Ltd complied with its duty under section 19(1) of the Act, failed to comply with his duty and the failure to comply with that duty exposed Posa to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.

4. This offence carries the maximum penalty of $300,000.

5. The offences were committed at a construction site located at 330 Church Street, Parramatta on 22 February 2016 and at that time and place there were workers working in the offender’s business who were exposed to a risk to their health and safety. One of the workers exposed to the risk was Posa who, as a result of being exposed to the risk, was actually injured when the risk came home.

6. The prosecutor tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts and an Agreed Tender Bundle which forms the basis of the background set out below. Miro Maric, directors of MJM and the accountant for MJM were present in court during the plea hearing.

PARTIES

7. MJM was the trustee for the MJM Trading Trust, and was a registered corporation. MJM conducted a business or undertaking, within the meaning of the Act.

8. At all times MJM’s business or undertaking involved providing commercial painting and decorating services.

9. Karimbla Construction Services Pty Ltd (ACN 093 419 875) (‘Karimbla’) was a registered corporation conducting a business or undertaking that included providing residential construction services.

10. Karimbla had engaged MJM to undertake painting works at the development site. The construction site was a workplace for the purposes of section 8 of the Act. Karimbla was the principle contractor at the construction site.

11. Poletti Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 077 528 600) (‘Poletti’) was a registered corporation conducting a business or undertaking that included erecting, installing and jumping perimeter edge protection screens, and specialised in high rise residential construction. Poletti had been engaged by Karimbla to erect and maintain a formwork perimeter system (‘formwork screens’) at the construction site.

12. At all material times Posa was a sole trader (ABN 55 398 322 805) who had been engaged by MJM as a painter to carry out general painting works at the construction site. Posa was subject to the supervision and allocation of duties by MJM.

13. Posa was a worker within the meaning of the Act, and he was caused to be engaged by MJM and his activities in carrying out the work in MJM’s business or undertaking were influenced and directed by MJM.

14. On 22 February 2016 Posa was required or permitted by MJM to perform painting services at the construction site.

15. At all material times Maric was an officer (within the meaning of that word in the Act) of MJM. Maric was an officer of the company by reason of the fact that he was director of the company, and he made decisions that affected the whole company, or a substantial part of the business of the company.

16. Maric’s business or undertaking involved commercial painting and decorating. Maric was a painter and supervisor for MJM at the construction site.

17. Pursuant to s 27(1) of the Act, Maric had a duty to exercise due diligence to ensure that the company complied with its duty or obligation under s 19(1) of the Act.

18. Some of the workers engaged by Karimbla comprised of the MJM workers, specifically including Posa. MJM workers were supervised by Maric and Morris Radovanovic (‘Radovanovic’).

BACKGROUND

19. At the construction site, Karimbla had been engaged to construct two residential towers (known as the ‘East Tower’ and the ‘West Tower’). The West Tower was 29 levels above ground, with 4 basement levels below the ground.

20. Poletti was obliged to comply with the relevant Australian Standards and Building Codes when attaching screens to the working platform decks. Poletti carried out any alterations or additions to the screens, and Karimbla was responsible for any works required on the edge of the concrete slab.

21. When the screens were erected, Poletti was bound to warrant and certify that all work had been carried out in compliance with the applicable scaffolding standards. Barricades would be erected by Poletti and/or Karimbla until there was a verbal handover. This was to prevent the workers accessing the area.

22. Poletti’s practice since mid-2015 was to issue a verbal handover to Karimbla which would confirm that the screens/platforms were safe for work to commence.

23. Poletti’s Safe Work Method Statement (‘SWMS’) for jumping the screens included a job step of fixing flaps to platforms and fixing mesh, as required, to all gaps.

24. On or about 18 February 2016, Poletti jumped the screen from level 25, to span upwards five levels. Poletti then handed over to Karimbla. Poletti had not walked the entirety of the screens prior to giving the verbal assurance to Karimbla. As a result no voids were identified or documented by Poletti, prior to the handover.

25. There were a few instances where gaps in the screens were noticed for being too wide – Karimbla brought to this Poletti’s attention so that it could be rectified. Poletti provided reassurances to Karimbla that the screens met Australian Standards. This was incorrect. Poletti was aware that there were gaps between working platforms and the edge of the building due to the design. As the levels were repeated, the existence of this kind of void was present on the lower and higher levels.

26. On or about 19 February 2016, Karimbla’s safety officer, Aram Heikman (‘Heikman’) informed Poletti that if Poletti did not install flaps to bring screen formwork decks up to the slab, he would insist that all workers wore harnesses when working on the screens. Poletti agreed.

27. A safety meeting was held by Karimbla for all contractors at the construction site on 20 February 2016. The Karimbla safety representatives expressed concerns over unprotected gaps on level 25 and above. The outcome of the meeting was that from Monday (being 22 February 2016), no workers were to access or work on the screens unless a static line had been installed and workers were to use harnesses. The attendees of the meeting were instructed to inform the other workers of this requirement.

28. Maric was in attendance as the MJM representative. It was his responsibility to let the workers know of the requirement before commencing any work at the construction site. Maric did not inform all MJM workers of this requirement, and as such the instruction was never provided to Posa.

THE INCIDENT

29. On 22 February 2016 at approximately 6:30am Posa arrived to the construction site to commence painting. Maric and Radovanovic were also on site.

30. No static lines had been installed on the screens. Posa was tasked to go to level 27 of the West Tower and commence painting on the external walls – this instruction came from Maric via telephone. Again, there was no mention of the instruction against working where there was not a static line, nor was there mention of the use of a harness. There were no barricades stopping access to the screens or to the work space.

31. Maric did not mention the meeting held two days prior regarding the gaps and voids. Maric did not inform Posa of the requirement that static lines were to be installed and that Posa must use a harness. Maric did not inform Posa that there were gaps on the exterior of the building that were inadequately covered or screened, and nor did he inform Posa that there was a risk of falling from height when working on the platform.

32. Posa collected his work equipment and walked along the platform of the level 27 screen. There was a piece of plywood that covered the gap between the platform and the edge of the concrete slab. Posa kicked the plywood board covering the gap to see if it was attached securely, and then stepped onto it to it.

33. The plywood gave way when Posa stepped on it, and he fell through the unprotected gap and fell through to level 25.

34. The hinged flaps had already been installed on level 25 which protected the gap between the working platform and the edge of the slab. Posa fell approximately six metres spanning two levels from level 27 to level 25.

35. As a consequence of the fall, Posa sustained serious injuries including left rib fractures, a left distal ulnar fracture, a left acromioclavicular joint dislocation and a laceration on the back of his head.

SYSTEMS OF WORK BEFORE THE ACCIDENT

36. MJM had the following documented safe work procedures in place prior to the incident:

1. A WHS Site Management Plan for the construction site, dated 27 April 2015;

2. A subcontractor agreement between MJM and Karimbla dated 21 October 2015, which detailed ‘Workplace Health and Safety Requirements of MJM under the contract’ as Part 12;

3. A ‘Scope of Painting Works’ dated 3 November 2015, which also referred to safety and WHS requirements;

4. Safe Work Method Statement (‘SWMS’) ‘Working at Heights’ 008 dated 27 March 2015;

5. SWMS ‘Working on Balconies or Over Voids’ 083 dated 27 March 2015;

6. SWMS ‘External Painting’ 092 dated 27 March 2015;

7. SWMS ‘Internal Painting’ 093 dated 27 March 2015;

8. Weekly ‘Karimbla Risk Assessment’ documents completed by MJM;

9. Weekly workplace inspection checklists;

10. Weekly ‘Karimbla Safety Observation’ documents completed by MJM;

11. Site-specific worker induction.

37. Items (h), (i) and (j) above were completed in the days leading up to the incident and did not identify the specific risk of falling through inadequately protected voids between the working decks of the formwork screens and the outside structure of the building. The forms indicated that the assessments, checks and observations undertaken by MJM were not thoroughly done, and were not completed in consultation with MJM workers.

GUIDANCE MATERIAL

38. Guidance was readily available to MJM and Maric in the WorkCover NSW Code of Practice and in the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (‘the Regulation’), both of which identified the hazards and risk associated with the work that was being done, and recommendations as to how to manage or eliminate the risks.

39. Part 4.4 of the Regulation provides specific requirements for the minimisation (clause 79) or the management (clause 78) of the risk of falls. Clause 79(3) of the Regulation provides:

‘(1) The person provides adequate protection against the risk if the person provides and maintains a safe system of work, including by:

(a) Providing a fall prevention device if it is reasonably practicable to do so; or

(b) If it is not reasonably practical to provide a fall prevention device, providing a work positioning system; or

(c) If it is not reasonably practicable to comply with either paragraph (a) or (b), providing a fall arrest system, so far as is reasonably practicable.’

40. In the WorkCover NSW publication: Managing the risk of falls at workplaces code of practice, July 2015, it is suggested that the person who has a duty under the Act, should walk around the workplace and talk to workers about important things to look for including ‘edges- protection for open edges of floors, working platforms, walkways, walls or roofs…Holes, openings or excavations – which will require guarding’.

41. The Australian/New Zealand Standard 1576.1:2010 Scaffolding refers to edge protection at clause 3.10. There is ample guidance in the relevant SafeWork Australia general guide for scaffolding and scaffolding work.

SYSTEMS OF WORK AFTER THE ACCIDENT

42. Notices were issued to Karimbla which resulted in a secure permanent structure extending from the working deck on the upper 2 levels of the level 25 screen, to ensure that the gap or void was securely covered. Hinged flaps were installed on the upper 2 levels, and the SWMS of Poletti and Karimbla were reviewed. A documented process involving the hand-over of perimeter screens to Karimbla after they had been jumped by Poletti was implemented.

43. There were no specific control measures implemented by MJM as the control measures implemented by Karimbla and Poletti effectively controlled the risk of falling through a gap. However, I accept that they have closely examined their safety systems and are being more vigilant about their Occupational Health and Safety obligations.

44. Maric was dismissed from the construction site by Karimbla after the incident and was prohibited from working on all Karimbla sites for failing to wear his own safety harness whilst working on, or accessing the screens after the incident.

PRIOR HISTORY

45. The offenders (MJM and Maric) have not previously appeared before the courts on health and safety matters, and both MJM and Maric cooperated with the SafeWork investigation.

CONSIDERATIONS

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

Objective Seriousness of the Offence

47. The duties of MJM and Maric require that they ensure that the health and safety of workers as far as reasonably practicable. As the offenders pleaded guilty, they have admitted that the measures to ensure safety would have been reasonably practicable. This duty is not delegable, and the offenders cannot escape it’s liability as a consequence of its contractual relations with other parties, as the offenders had control and influence over the workers at the site. The duty requires the identification of risks in the workplace and an assessment of measures to address such risks.

48. 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.

49. The weight given to such factors is a matter for the sentencing judge. In Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96; 93 NSWLR 388, Basten JA observed at [42]:

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 the overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions.

50. My findings about the offender’s level of culpability are based on the following:

1. The risk here was the risk of falling through an unguarded void. Unfortunately it came home. The consequences were potentially catastrophic, and Posa was lucky to have survived. His injuries were serious and continue to have a significant impact on him.

2. The nature of the risk was foreseeable. The measures that could have been taken to control or eliminate the risk were not difficult or expensive, and as such the offence is more objectively serious. The risks of falling from heights on building and construction sites are notorious. It is common sense that people working at height are at risk of falling down unless there is something that intervenes to prevent that occurring.

3. However, the risk was also obvious, glaringly so. Maric had been to a safety meeting with Karimbla and Poletti on the previous work day to the day that Posa was injured. The risk was pointed out to Maric at that meeting. Maric was told that workers should not work in any area until a static line had been installed and that they were to use harnesses. Maric was told to tell the workers to do so. He did not.

4. To suggest that Maric thought that the instruction was only to start from the Monday, is to my mind unfathomable. The fact that he continued to work without a harness on the Saturday (the day of the safety meeting) is foolish, and clearly Maric had no regard for his own safety, let alone that of workers. It smacks of a very cavalier attitude to workplace health and safety.

5. Posa had been at work on the day of the accident for less than an hour before he fell. Had he been wearing a harness attached to a static line as mandated by Karimbla, he would not have fallen as far as he did.

6. Had Maric on behalf of MJM informed workers including Posa that they were not to work on the work platforms and screens until the static line was in position and he was wearing a harness, the accident would not have happened.

7. I accept that Maric and MJM did not have control over the work platforms, but they had control over their workers. The simple remedy was to direct their workers that work must cease until the static line was installed and harnesses were worn. This was a cheap and simple step that would protect their workers from the risk of falling through an unguarded void. Despite having been alerted to the risk, Maric and MJM did nothing to attempt to eliminate or contain the risk.

DETERRENCE

51. 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 Sentencing 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 para [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.’

52. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [177]-[180] 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 the Court to depart from this rule.

53. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Bulga Underground Operations 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), where it was stated that:

‘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.’

54. In relation to specific deterrence, the attitude of MJM and Maric 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 MJM and Maric to reoffend.

55. 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, however it is not a factor to dominate the exercise of sentencing discretion to the exclusion of all factors.

RELATIVE CULPABILITY

56. In this matter the culpability of both MJM and Mr Maric must be evaluated having regard to the contribution by other duty holders at the construction site to the risk, namely Karimbla and Poletti Corporation, the specialist formwork contractor.

57. In Inspector Howard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIRComm 92 Walton J observed at [241]-[242]:

‘There is now ample authority for the proposition that the contribution of another entity to a risk to safety may be considered in mitigation in the assessment of penalty of a defendant. The authorities range from cases such as the present, where the contributing entity has provided services or advice which have contributed to the detriment to safety (McDonald’s) to, more commonly, cases where the entity or entities are engaged in a common project, enterprise or task with the defendant which carries out the role of a principal, contractor or fellow sub-contractor: Morrison v Waratah; Morrison v Powercoal (2005); WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Mansell) v Anytime Industrial Services Pty Ltd (2001) 110 IR 34; WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Farrell) v Morrison (No 2) [2002] NSWIRComm 27; (2002) 112 IR 312; WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Mansell) v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 116 IR 158 and WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 263; (2001) 109 IR 316.’

58. The common thread running through this line of authorities is the principle that where it may be contended that an entity, other than a defendant, has contributed to a detriment to safety (either by advice or common enterprise), the question remains, in assessing penalty, what are the specific culpabilities of the defendant, the statutory obligations placed upon the defendant not having been diminished by the notion that other entities may have contributed to the risk to safety (see, for example, Morrison v Waratah at [46]). The contribution of the other entity is only relevant to the extent that its contribution casts light upon the real level of culpability of the defendant: Morrison v Waratah at [46] and McDonald’s at [437]. Such an analysis may assist in understanding the reasonableness of the defendants’ actions, and may include an assessment of systems which were operating at the time of an incident giving rise to the prosecution …”

59. There is no dispute between the parties that the gap through which Posa fell (and any other gaps) could have been guarded by measures that provided more adequate protection than the use of harnesses.

AGGRIVATING FACTORS

60. The Prosecutor tendered a copy of an email from the solicitor acting for Posa in his compensation proceedings (exhibit 2). It reveals that Posa remains off work, and in receipt of workers compensation benefits. He has undergone 6 surgeries to his shoulder, and remains with a plate in his shoulder and has developed problems with his cervical spine and decompensation of his ‘good shoulder’ due to overuse. He is also suffering from depression.

61. The injuries sustained by Posa significant, and the sequelae were also very serious. These are aggravating factors that must be taken into account (See ss 21A (2)(g) of the CSP Act).

MITIGATING FACTORS

62. Counsel for the offenders tendered 2 affidavits of Mijo Maric respectively filed on 22 March 2019 (Exhibit A) and 3 April 2019 (Exhibit B). An affidavit of Maric filed 22 March 2019 was also tendered (Exhibit C).

63. Mijo Maric’s affidavits are relied upon by MJM as he is also a director of MJM and is responsible for obtaining work for the business, overseeing all projects, financial management together with MJM’s company accountant and management of workplace health and safety. He expresses the remorse and contrition of the company about the accident, and I accept that this is genuine. He notes that since the accident, MJM has seen a significant drop in the work obtained from Karimbla. He notes that they are no longer a preferred contractor for Karimbla, and as a result the company’s trading profits have more than halved since 2016.

64. MJM and Maric do not have any antecedents. S 21A(3)(e)

65. I accept that MJM is a good corporate citizen and has made significant contributions to the community, including volunteering its workers and materials to paint local community centres. S21A (3)(f)

66. I accept that Maric is a person of good character, and I have found above that MJM is company of good character, and that must flow onto Maric as a director of MJM. S21A(3)(f)

67. Maric’s affidavit expresses his remorse and I am satisfied that this is genuine. Maric was subsequently banned from any Karimbla sites and that ban has almost ended his working life. His tax returns were tendered and it was submitted by Counsel for the offender that this demonstrates that Maric and his wife have suffered a significant financial loss as a consequence of the incident.

68. It is evident that the directors all received a salary and then a distribution of profits. A distribution was also made to the spouses of the directors. However the source documents reveal that although the income and distributions to Maric and his wife have dropped in the last two years, they are back at a about the same level they were receiving in 2014 and 2015. In the financial year in which the accident occurred, Maric and his wife had the highest incomes of the five years of returns produced. Nonetheless, I accept that there has been a financial impact on Maric and his wife’s incomes.

69. I note that there is no application for a reduction of the fine on the basis of Maric or MJM’s capacity to pay.

70. The offenders pleaded guilty at an early stage, and they are entitled to a discount based on the utility of the plea. The appropriate discount is 25%.

71. Neither MJM nor Maric have any antecedents, and Maric demonstrated contrition and remorse personally and behalf of the company. Prior to the accident, 99% of MJM’s work was contracted by Karimbla. I note that Maric was banned from any further work on Karimbla sites again and as such I accept that it is unlikely that MJM would be invited back either. The likelihood of a repeated offence by MJM or Maric is extremely unlikely.

COSTS

72. By agreement, MJM is to pay the prosecutor’s defendant’s costs and disbursements in the sum of $45,000.00

PENALTY

73. With regards to MJM, my orders are:

1. The offender is convicted.

2. The appropriate fine is $250,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty.

3. Order the offender to pay a fine of $187,500.

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

5. I order the offender to pay the prosecutors costs in the sum of $45,000.00.

74. With regards to Maric, my orders are:

1. The offender is convicted.

2. The appropriate fine is $50,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.

3. Order the offender to pay a fine of $37,500.

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

**********

Decision last updated: 15 April 2019