Legal Research
Cases
SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd

SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd

Case [2024] NSWDC 217 14 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 217
Hearing dates: 4 June 2024
Date of orders: 14 June 2024
Decision date: 14 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Steggles Pty Ltd is convicted.
(2)   The appropriate fine is $200,000 but that will be reduced by 20% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3)   Order Steggles Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $160,000.
(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 Steggles 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
SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – plea of guilty – general deterrence – specific deterrence – capacity to pay appropriate penalty
COSTS – prosecution costs
OTHER – poultry processing plant – conveyor line – blade – hock cutter – worker reattached chicken to conveyor line – hand caught – hand severed by blade

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
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) cl 208

Cases Cited:
Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232
Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329
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
Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45
Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47
KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) [2020] HCA 6; (2020) 267 CLR 480
Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1
MahdiJahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
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
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335
R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; (2020) 267 CLR 494
Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

Texts Cited:
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4801 – Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, 2001
Australian Standard AS 4024.1801-2014 – Safety of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 217
Case: [2024] NSWDC 217
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a workplace incident where a worker at a poultry processing plant was severely injured. The worker had reattached a chicken to a conveyor line, and in doing so, his hand was caught by a blade on a hock cutter, resulting in the severing of his hand. SafeWork NSW prosecuted Steggles Pty Ltd, the company responsible for the plant, for breaches of work health and safety laws. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The court needed to determine whether Steggles Pty Ltd had breached its duty under the work health and safety legislation to ensure the health and safety of its workers. Specifically, it had to consider whether the company had failed to ensure that the risk of death or serious injury was minimised. The court also needed to decide on an appropriate penalty for the breach, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence, the plea of guilty, and other mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court found Steggles Pty Ltd guilty, noting the severity of the injury and the clear breach of safety protocols. It considered the plea of guilty as a mitigating factor, reducing the fine by 20%. The court emphasised the importance of general and specific deterrence in setting the penalty, alongside the company's capacity to pay. As a result, the court ordered Steggles Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $160,000, with half of that amount to be paid to the prosecutor, and the remaining costs to be borne by the company.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Steggles Pty Ltd is convicted.

(2) The appropriate fine is $200,000 but that will be reduced by 20% to reflect the plea of guilty.

(3) Order Steggles Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $160,000.

(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 Steggles 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 217

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 23 of 23 shown

BC v R
[2020] NSWCCA 329 Para 8

…ove and Hall JJ agreeing). In contrast, any disputed fact which the defendant seeks to rely on must be proved on the balance of probabilities: BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329 (Gleeson JA, Price J, Wright J); Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45 at [13] (Beazley P, Harrison J and R A Hulme J); R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335 at [5] (Beec…
R v Wang
[2020] NSWSC 1335 Para 8

…ties: BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329 (Gleeson JA, Price J, Wright J); Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45 at [13] (Beazley P, Harrison J and R A Hulme J); R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335 at [5] (Beech-Jones J).…
Alameddine v R
[2020] NSWCCA 232 Para 8

…at [32] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ); R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 at [69]-[73] (Leeming JA, Rothman J, N Adams J); Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232 at [46] (Bathurst CJ); Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 at [13] (Leeming JA); R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 at [30] (Johnson J); R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 1…
R v Pearce
[2020] NSWCCA 61 Para 8

…ved beyond reasonable doubt: Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; (2020) 267 CLR 494 at [32] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ); R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 at [69]-[73] (Leeming JA, Rothman J, N Adams J); Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232 at [46] (Bathurst CJ); Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 at [13] (Leemi…
Strbak v The Queen
[2020] HCA 10 Para 8

…Any disputed fact that the prosecutor seeks to rely on must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; (2020) 267 CLR 494 at [32] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ); R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 at [69]-[73] (Leeming JA, Rothman J, N Adams J); Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 23…
KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA)
[2020] HCA 6 Para 7

…The High Court has since applied this approach in KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) [2020] HCA 6; (2020) 267 CLR 480 at [33] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ), Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [64]-[66] (French CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ), and L…
Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW
[2018] NSWCCA 266 Para 145

…In Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 at [79] the Court of Criminal Appeal said:…
Bulga Underground Operations v Nash
[2017] NSWCCA 96 Para 129

…ard to the WHS 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. Justice Basten at [34], under the heading “Assessment of Risk” said:…
Chiang v R
[2016] NSWCCA 45 Para 8

…h the defendant seeks to rely on must be proved on the balance of probabilities: BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329 (Gleeson JA, Price J, Wright J); Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45 at [13] (Beazley P, Harrison J and R A Hulme J); R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335 at [5] (Beech-Jones J).…
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash
[2016] NSWCCA 37 Para 134

…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].…
Filippou v The Queen
[2015] HCA 29 Para 7

…lic Prosecutions (SA) [2020] HCA 6; (2020) 267 CLR 480 at [33] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ), Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [64]-[66] (French CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ), and Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1 at [23] (Gleeson CJ).…
Cowling v R
[2015] NSWCCA 213 Para 8

…JJ); R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 at [69]-[73] (Leeming JA, Rothman J, N Adams J); Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232 at [46] (Bathurst CJ); Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 at [13] (Leeming JA); R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 at [30] (Johnson J); R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130 at [13]-[16] (Hunt AJA, Grove and Hall JJ agreeing…
Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen
[2014] NSWCCA 178 Para 144

…exercise its discretion to limit the amount of the fine. The offender’s capacity to pay is relevant but not decisive: Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178 at [16]. A substantial fine may still be warranted as a result of the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.…
R v AB
[2011] NSWCCA 229 Para 8

…Leeming JA, Rothman J, N Adams J); Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232 at [46] (Bathurst CJ); Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 at [13] (Leeming JA); R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 at [30] (Johnson J); R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130 at [13]-[16] (Hunt AJA, Grove and Hall JJ agreeing). In contrast, any disputed fact which the def…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 125

…In Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27] the High Court said:…
BW v R
[2011] NSWCCA 176 Para 124

…ive seriousness of the offence committed, and set the limits within which a sentence proportional to the criminality of the offender will lie: BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 at [70].…
R v Wilkinson (No. 5)
[2009] NSWSC 432 Para 126

…ng 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].…
Leach v The Queen
[2007] HCA 3 Para 7

…don and Edelman JJ), Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47 at [64]-[66] (French CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ), and Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1 at [23] (Gleeson CJ).…
R v McNaughton
[2006] NSWCCA 242 Para 123

…sed 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].…
R v Kirkland
[2005] NSWCCA 130 Para 8

…020] NSWCCA 232 at [46] (Bathurst CJ); Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 at [13] (Leeming JA); R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 at [30] (Johnson J); R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130 at [13]-[16] (Hunt AJA, Grove and Hall JJ agreeing). In contrast, any disputed fact which the defendant seeks to rely on must be proved on the balanc…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 6

…roof of contested or disputed facts required in a sentencing hearing depends upon which party is seeking to rely on a particular fact. In R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [27] the High Court said:…
Baumer v R
[1988] HCA 67 Para 124

…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 t…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 123

…hat 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 cri…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21A, 22, 3A 4 mentions (from Para 122)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT)
19, 3, 32 4 mentions (from Para 2)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
122, 6 3 mentions (from Para 144)

Medium Neutral Citation:	SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 217
Hearing dates:	4 June 2024
Date of orders:	14 June 2024
Decision date:	14 June 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Russell SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Steggles Pty Ltd is convicted. (2) The appropriate fine is $200,000 but that will be reduced by 20% to reflect the plea of guilty. (3) Order Steggles Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $160,000. (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 Steggles 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 SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – plea of guilty – general deterrence – specific deterrence – capacity to pay appropriate penalty COSTS – prosecution costs OTHER – poultry processing plant – conveyor line – blade – hock cutter – worker reattached chicken to conveyor line – hand caught – hand severed by blade
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 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) cl 208
Cases Cited:	Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232 Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51 BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329 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 Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45 Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47 KMC v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) [2020] HCA 6; (2020) 267 CLR 480 Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1 MahdiJahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178 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 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61 R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335 R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; (2020) 267 CLR 494 Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited:	Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4801 – Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, 2001 Australian Standard AS 4024.1801-2014 – Safety of…