District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Williams Timber Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 777 Hearing dates: 9 December 2020 Date of orders: 18 December 2020 Decision date: 18 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Strathdee DCJ Decision: (1) The defendant is convicted. (2) The appropriate fine for the defendant is $200,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. (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) I make no order as to 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 Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Fines Act 1996 (NSW) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bulga Underground Operations v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of NSW [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 Environmental Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384 Inspector Howard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2009] NSWIRComm 92 Kirk v Industrial Commission of New South Wales; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (1999) 90 IR 464 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Morrison v Powercoal Pty Limited & Anor (No.3) [2005] NSWIRComm 61 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 Orbit Drilling v The Queen; Smith v The Queen [2012] VSCA 82 R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304 R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68 SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 632 Veen v R (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700 Texts Cited: SafeWork Australia: Construction work – steel erection information sheet (January 2016) The SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks (December 2011) SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, Code of Practice, Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace (July 2014) The Australian Standard AS4204 (Series) Safety of Machinery Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) Williams Timber Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Scott (Prosecutor) Mr M Shume (Defendant) Solicitors: Mr El-Roubaei, Department of Customer Service Ms J Gilbert, TTIA Legal File Number(s): 320299 of 2019 1. JUDGMENT 2. On 9 October 2020, Williams Timber Pty Ltd ('the defendant') plead guilty to an offence contrary to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ('the Act') that, by failing to comply with the health and safety duty imposed upon it by s 19(1) of the Act, it exposed Joshua Kelly (Mr Kelly) to a risk of death or serious injury. 3. The proceedings relate to an incident that occurred at 309 Wears Road, Central Booker ('the site'). The defendant operated a sawmill at the site. One of its employees, Mr Kelly, was injured whilst he was adjusting the packing mechanism of the Gibson Twin Edger Saw located at the site. 4. The offence carries the maximum penalty of $1,500,000.00. 5. The circumstances of the offence are particularised in the charge and set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, which are summarised below. 6. The Prosecution Tender Bundle was marked 'Exhibit A'. The defendant tendered 3 affidavits – Andrew Williams dated 10 November 2020 (Exhibit 1), Andrew Williams dated 3 December 2020 (Exhibit 2) and Thomas Dean Seccombe dated 11 November 2020 (Exhibit 3). BACKGROUND 1. Williams Timber Pty Limited ('the defendant') conducted a business or undertaking that included the supply of timber for decking, structural support, fencing and other uses. 2. The defendant operated a sawmill at the site. The site was a workplace for the purposes of s 8 of the Act. 3. Mr Andrew Williams ('Mr Williams') and Mr Shane Williams are the directors of the defendant. Mr Williams was the managing director of the defendant and was involved in its day-to-day operations. Mr Williams would attend the site every day and direct the workers in relation to what needed to be undertaken. Mr Shane Williams was a 'silent director' and had minimal involvement in the day-to-day operations of the defendant. 4. The defendant employed approximately 12 employees, including Mr Joshua Kelly ('Mr Kelly') as a sawmill worker. THE SAW 1. The defendant had management and control of a Gibson Twin Edger Saw ('GTE Saw') which was used by workers at the site to cut large logs of hard wood timber. The GTE Saw was purchased from A.E. Gibson & Sons Pty Limited ('Gibson'). 2. The GTE Saw had a packing mechanism with adjustment screws that allowed the user to align the saw blade. Workers were required to align the saw blade by adjusting the packing mechanism up to 8 to 10 times per day. The packing mechanism consisted of two parallel metal plates fitted to the blade with pads touching each side of the blade on the leading edge. Two large bolts were fitted to the packing mechanism with a square shaped nut at the end of the screw and a locking nut against the outer section of the side plate. 3. The adjustment of the packing mechanism was usually performed by using a spanner which fit securely to the adjustment nuts ('the packing spanner'). The packing spanner was intended to be the only spanner that workers were to use to adjust the packing mechanism. THE INCIDENT 1. On 13 October 2019 Mr Kelly was operating the GTE Saw to cut large logs of timber. The GTE saw was not cutting straight so Mr Kelly was required to adjust the packing mechanism to align the blade. The dedicated packing spanner was being used by another worker so Mr Kelly used a different, adjustable spanner. As Mr Kelly was adjusting the packing mechanism, the adjustable spanner slipped off the nut and Mr Kelly's right hand came in contact with the running blade of the GTE saw, severing part of his hand. 2. Mr Kelly was assisted by other workers at the site and was then conveyed to hospital. Mr Kelly sustained serious injuries in the incident which required the partial amputation of his thumb, index, middle and ring fingers. Mr Kelly has also been impacted mentally and emotionally and suffers from bouts of frustration and irritation due to his loss of functionality in his hand. 3. At the time of the incident, Mr Kelly had been employed with the defendant for approximately five years. SYSTEMS OF WORK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT 1. The defendant had a Safety Induction Training Manual ('Safety Induction') which workers were required to sign when they commenced their employment with the defendant. The Safety Induction provided, inter alia, the following: '[The defendant] has a safety representative who is responsible for conducting a safety meeting every 3 months … to consult/interact with employees about OH&S issues which may be present … Never operate machinery unless you have been authorised and received adequate training … Never operate a machine unless the guards are in place … Never carry out maintenance, cleaning or blade changing until the machine is switched off, isolated and the run-down time is completed.' 1. Gibson had provided a Risk Assessment and Hazards Identification document ('RAHID') to the defendant when the defendant purchased the GTE Saw. The RAHID, though not provided to workers or enforced in the workplace, recommended the following to ensure the safety of personnel and integrity of the GTE Saw: 1. Staff and operator training; 2. Risk and hazard identification; 3. Continual instruction of staff regarding hazards and procedures; 4. A suitable isolation procedure; 5. Clearly identified and marked out work areas and 'no go' areas; 6. Training a 'safety minded work team'; 7. Diligence in ensuring all personnel involved with the installation, maintenance service and operation of the GTE Saw have recognised trade qualifications to safely and competently fulfil their roles and responsibilities. 1. The RAHID also instructed users to keep out of the area of the GTE Saw 'when it is live' and recommended that the machine be fully guarded. 2. The defendant had a Safety Operating Procedure for various plant, including the GTE Saw ('GTE Saw SOP'). The GTE Saw SOP, though not provided to the workers or enforced in the workplace, provided, inter alia: 'Ensure all guards are fitted correctly and are adequately guarding blade, nip points and moving parts. Guarding includes: (a) Fence guarding around the saw and carriage. (b) Riving knives fitted to the back of saw blades. (c) Fixed guards over drive belts and chains. … Make sure the work area is clear of people before starting up the machine. … Never place your hands near moving saw. … Saws must be turned off when adjusting saw packing.' 1. Prior to the incident, the defendant did not have in place an adequate physical barrier which prevented access to moving parts of the GTE Saw while it was in operation, such as an interlocked physical barrier which allowed access to moving parts only at times when that area did not present a risk. The documented Safe Operating Procedures, including the GTE Saw SOP, were not seen by all workers. 2. The defendant did not develop, implement and enforce a safe work procedure for the manual adjustment of the packing mechanism of the GTE Saw which prohibited workers from approaching the saw blade unless the saw was isolated or turned off and the blades had stopped running, and which specified that the packing spanner was the only tool to be used to adjust the packing mechanism. 3. The defendant did not provide adequate information, instruction, training or supervision to workers regarding the safe operation of plant, including the GTE Saw, and in particular, in relation to safely adjusting the alignment of the blade. Workers learned on the job. 4. The defendant did not have documented or formal competency assessments of workers prior to those workers adjusting the packing mechanism of the GTE Saw, including assessment of each worker's competency to isolate or turn off plant prior to approaching moving parts (for example, to adjust packing). 5. When workers commenced with the defendant, they were required to review and sign the Safety Induction. The Safety Induction only included general machine safety tips and did not include specific control measures to be implemented when operating the GTE Saw. 6. Workers, including Mr Kelly and Mr Smidt (another sawmill worker), had raised safety concerns with Mr Williams regarding the packing mechanism being too close to the blade of the GTE Saw. The defendant did not address this concern. 7. The defendant, as part of its system of work, allowed workers to adjust the GTE Saw's packing mechanism while the blades were in motion. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND GUIDANCE MATERIAL Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 1. The defendant had obligations under Part 3.1 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) ('the Regulation'). Regulation 34 requires a duty holder to identify reasonably foreseeable hazards that could give rise to risks to health and safety. Regulation 35 requires a duty holder to eliminate risks to health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable or, if not reasonably practicable to do so, minimise those risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Regulation 36 sets out a hierarchy of control measures that duty holders must put in place when minimising a risk to health or safety, and Regulations 37 and 38 provide that a duty holder must maintain and review control measures to ensure they remain effective. 2. Clause 208 of the Regulation reads as follows: '208 Guarding (1) This clause applies if guarding is used as a control measure in relation to plant at a workplace. (2) The person with management or control of the plant must ensure that— (a) if access to the area of the plant requiring guarding is not necessary during operation, maintenance or cleaning of the plant, the guarding is a permanently fixed physical barrier, or (b) if access to the area of the plant requiring guarding is necessary during operation, maintenance or cleaning of the plant, the guarding is an interlocked physical barrier that allows access to the area being guarded at times when that area does not present a risk and prevents access to that area at any other time, or (c) if it is not reasonably practicable to use guarding referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), the guarding used is a physical barrier that can only be altered or removed by the use of tools, or (d) if it is not reasonably practicable to use guarding referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), the guarding includes a presence-sensing safeguarding system that eliminates any risk arising from the area of the plant requiring guarding while a person or any part of a person is in the area being guarded. … (5) Despite anything to the contrary in this clause, the person with management or control of the plant must ensure— (a) that the guarding is of a kind that can be removed to allow maintenance and cleaning of the plant at any time that the plant is not in normal operation, and (b) if guarding is removed, that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the plant cannot be restarted unless the guarding is replaced.' Code of Practice, How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks 1. The SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks (December 2011) ('WHS COP') provides guidance on how to identify, assess, control and review risks in the workplace. This was a publicly accessible document which was readily available to the defendant. The WHS COP provides advice and guidance in relation to assessing and controlling risks in accordance with the Regulation. Specifically, at pages 4 to 5 of the WHS COP, a four-step risk management process is set out as follows: 1. Identifying what could cause harm; 2. Assessing the nature of harm that could be caused, the seriousness of the potential harm and its likelihood of occurring; 3. Implementing, the most effective control measure that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and 4. Reviewing control measures to ensure they are effective. Code of Practice, Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace 1. Prior to and at the time of the incident, the SafeWork NSW Code of Practice, Code of Practice, Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace (July 2014) ('Plant COP') was published and readily available to the defendant. The Plant COP outlines a number of methods by which risks associated with plant can be controlled and provides guidance on how to maintain a safe system of work, including as follows: 1. A person conducting a business or undertaking ('PCBU') must provide workers and other persons who are to use plant with training, information, instruction and supervision that is necessary to protect them from risks arising from the use of plant; 2. A PCBU's management must take action to correct any unsafe work practices associated with plant as soon as possible, otherwise workers may be lead to think that unsafe work practices are acceptable; 3. Regular inspections of plant should be undertaken to identify any adverse effects of changes in processes or materials associated with plant and unsafe work practices associated with its use and a record of inspections and maintenance should be kept for each item of plant; 4. Plant should be isolated before maintenance or cleaning commences; and 5. Multiple, different types of guarding should be available for an item of plant, such as permanently fixed physical barriers, interlocked physical barriers, and presence sensing systems. Australian Standard AS4204 (Series) Safety of Machinery 1. Prior to the incident, The Australian Standard AS4204 (Series) Safety of Machinery ('AS2404') was available to the defendant. AS2404 provides guidance on reducing the risks to health and safety associated with machinery. 2. AS2404 recommends that where access to a 'hazard zone' is not required during normal operation of the machinery, appropriate safeguards should be selected from the following: 1. Fixed guards; 2. Interlocking guards with or without guard locking; 3. Self-closing guards; 4. Sensitive protective equipment, such as electro-sensitive protective equipment; or 5. Pressure sensitive protective devices. SYSTEMS OF WORK FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT 1. Following the incident, SafeWork issued Improvement Notice 7-315071 to the defendant which directed the defendant to 'install appropriate guarding to the control room and the eastern side of the twin edger saw blades which complies with clause 208 of the Regulation. This Notice was complied with on or about 24 October 2019. 2. SafeWork NSW also issued Prohibition Notice 36055 to the defendant which required the defendant to cease using the GTE Saw until it installed appropriate guarding in compliance with clause 2019 of the Regulation and which prevented access to the blades of the GTE Saw whilst they were in operation or had not ceased rotating. This Notice was complied with on or about 17 October 2019. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The risk was one of serious injury or death as a result of coming in to contact with the moving parts of the GTE Saw, in particular the blades. The defendant, by its plea of guilty, accepts that the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts establish each of the particulars of the risk. 2. The process used by workers prior to the incident was to stand to the side of the saw blade whilst the saw blades were rotating and use a specifically designed spanner to adjust the adjustment mechanism which in turn adjusted the vertical stance of the saw blade. 3. The use of the specifically designed tool and standing to the side of the blade was considered at the time to limit the risk to the person adjusting it and it was thought by Mr Williams and the workers that the saw blades had to be rotating for them to be properly adjusted. 4. The exposure to the risk was significant as the work was done regularly, and had been done in such a fashion for a lengthy period of time. The only difference that had occurred in the months before the incident was the installation of a new GTE Saw which had shorter packings (adjustment mechanism) which meant that the person adjusting the verticality of the saw blade was closer to the saw blade than on the previous machine. 5. The underlying problem for the defendant was that the two persons who were effectively running the operation either did not know (Mr Williams) or did not believe Thomas Seccombe ('Mr Seccombe') (a dockerman in the saw mill and the supervisor on the floor as at the date of the incident) that it could be done without the saw blades rotating. Even though there were documents which referred to adjustments occurring when the blades were not rotating, that system did not exist in practice. There is no evidence as to how that system came to be on paper. 6. It is clear from the evidence: 1. That the personnel who were responsible for both adjusting the saw blades and supervising the saw blades had significantly more experience than Mr Williams in that regard; 2. Mr Williams had done significant amounts of work to educate himself in the sawmill industry so that he could ensure that the defendant provided a safe workplace; 3. Mr Williams had invested significant amounts of money to ensure that the defendant provided a safe workplace; 4. It was not from a lack of effort that Mr Williams did not know that it was possible to adjust the saw blades without them rotating. It was simply that throughout all of his enquiries and learning, he had not seen anyone adjust the saw blades other than when they were rotating, and had understood that it was necessary for them to be rotating to adjust them properly; 5. Whilst Mr Williams' attention had been drawn to the issue of the new packings being closer to the saw blade than the packings on the older machine, his only recollection of this being raised was when the machine was delivered and prior to its installation and use; 6. Mr Seccombe, who was working on the floor, and was supervising the workers and interacting with them on a daily basis, did not receive any complaints. SENTENCING 1. I have had regard to the objectives set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ('the Sentencing Act') for the purpose of sentencing. The purposes for which a Court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows: 1. to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence; 2. to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences; 3. to protect the community from the offender; 4. to promote the rehabilitation of the offender; 5. to make the offender accountable for his or her actions; and 6. to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community. THE NATURE OF THE DUTY 1. The nature of the duty is one that requires a person conducting a business or undertaking ('PCBU') to ensure as far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers at the workplace. The duty included ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons could not come into contact with the moving parts of the GTE Saw, in particular the blades: s 19(3) of the Act. 2. The duty required the defendant to identify risks in the workplace and adopt measures to eliminate or minimise them: Kirk v Industrial Commission of New South Wales; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531. 3. The notion of reasonable practicability is informed by the considerations found in s 17 of the Act. The defendants, by their pleas of guilty, have admitted that the measures to ensure safety pressed by the prosecutor would have been reasonably practicable. 4. The duty is one of strict liability: s 12A of the Act. Consequently, there is no relevant mental element to the offence whether it be reference to intent, carelessness or recklessness. 5. In Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [31], Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ set out their reasons why sentencers should have particular regard to the maximum penalties specified by statute. Their Honours stated: '…careful attention to maximum penalties will almost always be required, first because the legislature has legislated for them; secondly, because they invite comparison between the worst possible case and the case before the court at the time; and thirdly, because in that regard they do provide, taken and balanced with all of the relevant factors, a yardstick.' SENTENCING PRINCIPLES 1. The penalties imposed must give effect to the intention of the Act, in particular, protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety and welfare through the elimination or minimisation of risks arising from work: s 3A of the Act. 2. The court is to be guided by the provisions of the Sentencing Act which include: 1. Section 3A which sets out the purpose of sentencing; 2. Section 21A which sets out the aggravating, mitigating and other factors in sentencing; and 3. Section 22 which provides that a guilty plea is to be taken into account on sentence, as is the time when the plea was effectively indicated or entered. 1. The court is to approach a sentencing exercise on the basis of it being one of "instinctive synthesis": Markarian v The Queen (supra). 2. This approach to sentencing was reiterated by Russell DCJ in SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 632 at [109] in this way: 'The court must identify all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and then make a value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; [2011] 244 CLR 120. This approach to sentencing, known as the "instinctive synthesis" approach, involves the making of a global judgment without any attempt to state precisely how any given factor has influenced the judgment.' 1. The objective degree of foreseeability is a matter for the Court to have regard to when considering the gravity of the offence: Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of NSW (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 at [89]. OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE 1. The duties of the defendant requires that it ensure the health and safety of workers as far as reasonably practicable. This duty is not delegable and the defendant 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. 2. 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 into account such factors. 3. The primary factor to be assessed is the objective seriousness of the offence. Subjective factors play a subsidiary role: Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (1999) 90 IR 464, 474-5. 4. Subjective factors should not be permitted to produce a sentence which fails to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence: WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700 at [714]. 5. The gravity of the offence is determined by the extent of the duty holder's failure to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that its workers were not exposed to risks to their safety: Orbit Drilling v The Queen; Smith v The Queen [2012] VSCA 82 at [62], and Veen v R (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465. 6. An offence will be serious where there is an obvious or foreseeable risk to safety against which appropriate measures were not taken even though such measures were available and feasible: Morrison v Powercoal Pty Limited & Anor (No.3) [2005] NSWIRComm 61. 7. In Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96, Basten JA explained the approach to sentencing as follows: '[34] 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. ….. [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 an overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions. Culpability in this case is reasonably high because, even if the pressure event of the force which occurred might not be expected to occur often, the seriousness of the foreseeable resultant harm is extreme and the steps to be taken to avoid it, were not even assessed, were straightforward and involved only minor inconvenience and little, if any, costs. ….. [53] The legitimate purpose of intervention in the present case are twofold. The first purpose is to identify the proper approach to considering the objective seriousness of the offences under the Work Safety Act. It is important to note that the risk to be assessed is not the risk of the consequence, to the extent that a worker is in fact injured, but is the risk arising from the failure to take reasonably practicable steps to avoid the injury occurring. To discount the seriousness of the risk by reference to the unlikelihood of injury resulting is apt to lead to error. The conduct in question is the failure to respond to a risk of injury, conduct which will be more serious, the more serious the potential injuries, whether or not they are likely to materialise. The objective seriousness of the conduct will also be affected by the ease with which mitigating steps could have been taken.' (my emphasis) 1. The more obvious the risk, the ease with which it can be controlled or eliminated and the more serious the consequences of the offence, when considered together, the more serious the offence will be. 2. The crux of the matter was the failure of Mr Williams on behalf of the defendant to recognise the risk. 3. Mr Williams is a director of the defendant, and the person who had day to day carriage of the operations, but is relatively new to the business. I accept that he spent a considerable amount of time educating himself about the equipment used in the business and how he could improve safety at he sawmill, and he put that knowledge to good use. However, somewhat incredibly, Mr Williams and persons managing the company were not aware of the risk. 4. It almost seems unbelievable that Mr Williams, or anyone else for that matter, could not foresee that workers attempting to adjust the blades whilst they were rotating would give rise to a significant risk of harm. 5. I accept that Mr Williams had only ever seen the blades being adjusted when they were rotating. However, common sense would suggest that to attempt to adjust the blades whilst they were moving would create a significant risk of injury, as unfortunately happened in this instance. 6. I also accept that Mr Williams hired Mr Seccombe who had years of experience, to manage the on the floor operations of the sawmill and that unfortunately Mr Seccombe also thought that the only way the blades could be adjusted was when they were rotating. However, the defendant's duty is non-delegable (s 14 of the Act), and the duty to ensure the safety of workers rests solidly on the defendant and therefore on Mr Williams. 7. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the actions of Mr Williams in educating himself about the operations of a saw mill would mitigate against the objective seriousness of the incident, and that whilst the breach was serious, it was not based on lack of commitment to safety nor a blatant disregard for safety, or lack of resources. It was further submitted that it came down to the fact that he understood that this was the only way the task could be done and that he did not come across any information that caused him to question this issue. 8. Whilst I accept that there has been a lot done by Mr Williams to educate himself and hire the appropriate workers for the business, the risk was obvious, glaringly so. I find it inconceivable that anyone could look at the system of adjusting the blades whilst they were moving and not appreciate the significant risk involved in that task, and the defendant concedes that is the case. 9. There is also the question of guarding of the machine. Again, it is difficult to imagine a more obvious guarding risk than that presented by a quickly moving saw blade that rotates within 100mm of where an operator's hands are placed some 8 to 10 times per day. 10. A slightly less obvious risk, but still a severe risk was also present by any person being able to approach the operating saw whilst the blades were turning. 11. The defendant did have the written GTE Saw SOP which provided that the "saws must be turned off when adjusting the saw packing". It seems as plain as night follows day that this is what should be done, however this document was not made available to the workers and not enforced in the workplace. 12. This is not a case in which the defendant's workers had been acting contrary to the defendant's GTE Saw SOP and put themselves in danger, but rather one where the defendant has expected the workers not to perform the work in accordance with the GTE Saw SOP, but to act contrary to it. The obvious result is that the workers were faced with a serious risk of injury every time the blades were adjusted. 13. The attitude of the defendant continued despite the defendant having available to it the assistance of guidance material such as the Plant COP, WHS COP and AS2404. 14. It is clear to me that having regard to the obvious nature of the risk, the fact that it must have been known to the defendant for it to be incorporated in their GTE Saw SOP, taken together with the expectation of the defendant that the workers would act contrary to the SOP and thereby put themselves at risk, means that this matter falls into the middle range of seriousness. This is because the blades which are used to cut hardwood are dangerous and any person who is required to work in close proximity to them when they are rotating is exposed to a serious risk. 15. The court is obliged to make an assessment of where, on the scale of criminality, the offence lies referable to the maximum penalty prescribed by the legislature: R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304 per Latham J at [17]-[18]. 16. The maximum penalty for this offence by the corporate defendant is a fine of $1,500,000.00 which reflects the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offence. 17. By its plea, the defendant has however conceded that there were steps which, in all the circumstances of the incident were reasonably practicable, and if taken, would have reduced the risk. DETERRENCE 1. 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. 2. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached. The fundamental duty of the court to ensure a level of penalty for a breach will compel attention to work, health and safety issues so that persons are not exposed to risks to their health and safety at the workplace: Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384 at 388 3. When examining matters of deterrence, both specific and general deterrence apply: R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68. The Prosecutor submits that the facts of this case do not present any basis for departing from the established principles relevant to deterrence. 4. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Bulga Underground Operations v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) NSWLR 338 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 a Court to depart from this rule, citing with approval the decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of NSW in Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of NSW [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610: '[74] … 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, 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. … [75] … 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.' 1. General deterrence must be a significant feature of the sentence imposed upon the defendants. The failure by a company to recognise the dangers and risks that arise to persons adjusting blades whist they are rotating is very difficult to understand. 2. Workers subjected to a risk of serious injury or death as a result of being injured in circumstances where they are working with unguarded rotating blades is not unique to the circumstances of this defendant. The imposition of a component directed towards general deterrence, it is hoped, will highlight the need for other corporations and individuals of proper planning and development of procedures to eliminate, or at the very least severely minimise, the presentation of such a risk. 3. Similarly, general deterrence can be appropriately used to direct the industry's attention to the consequences of inattention and the need for greater concentration on the potential risks associated with the operation of machinery in an industrial context. 4. In relation to specific deterrence, the attitude of the defendants 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 defendants to reoffend. 5. 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 sentencing discretion to the exclusion of all factors. 6. 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) 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) 109 IR 316.' 1. In these circumstances, I find that the need for specific deterrence is significant given that this defendant failed to appreciate what to my mind was such an obvious risk to the safety of the workers, to which I have previously referred. 2. The protection of workers from injury to parts of their body coming into contact with moving parts of machinery has been one of the fundamental health and safety concerns since the inception of occupational health and safety legislation. 3. Regulations have been put in place, Codes of Practice have been written and distributed and standards have been written seeking to overcome the risk generated by unguarded or inadequately guarded machinery. 4. General deterrence is necessary so as to assist in once again bringing to the attention of companies engaged in industries that require workers to come into close contact with large, potentially hazardous machinery that such machinery needs to be so engineered so as to remove a risk of injury to those workers. 5. The defendant remains in the industry and continues to perform the building work as it did before the incident. 6. Photographs in the tender bundle show guards have been installed, including an interlocking gate mechanism immediately at the entrance to the GTE Saw, modifications to the packing mechanism for the GTE Saw and guarding installed near the blades of the GTE Saw. 7. It is hoped that the imposition of a fine will specifically focus the defendant's attention as to the need to protect the health and safety of its workers rather than having an attitude that its procedures should be directed by what it observes other sawmills doing. AGGRAVATING FACTORS 1. The injuries sustained by Mr Kelly were significant, and resulted in a partial amputation of his thumb, index, middle and ring fingers. Mr Kelly also suffered mental and emotional trauma, including bouts of frustration and irritation due to loss of functionality in his hand. MITIGATING FACTORS 1. The onus is on the defendant to establish a mitigating factor. I accept that offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity: s 21A(3)(b) of the Sentencing Act, and that the defendant co-operated with the investigation by SafeWork: s 23 of the Sentencing Act. 2. I note that the defendant has a record of previous convictions: s 21A(3)(e) of the Act. Whilst the convictions are dated 2002 and 2008, they do relate to breaches of the sections of the then relevant Act which required the defendant to ensure the health and safety of its employees. The first incident involved a person being hit by part of a tree in a forestry situation. Mr Williams has removed that type of work from the business undertaking. 3. The second incident involved operating a machine which had been decommissioned, and was used without permission. The crux of that case was that although taken out of use, it was still possible for the machine to be plugged in and operated. 4. I also note that the last conviction was twelve years ago, and that new management has been introduced since that last conviction, which I accept has demonstrated some positive commitment to safety. The defendant has operated for over 50 years in an industry known for being dangerous, and as such the company's record is good, and allows me to apportion some leniency to the defendant. 5. It is accepted that Mr Williams personally and on behalf of the company has demonstrated remorse: s 21A(3)(i) of the Sentencing Act. 6. The defendant entered a plea of guilty and the Prosecutor accepts that the defendant ought be afforded the conventional 25% discount based on the utilitarian value of the plea: s 22 of the Act. I accept that this was an early plea as it came before the matter was listed for trial and thus the defendants are entitled to the 25% discount. CAPACITY TO PAY 1. The defendant has raised the issue of its ability to pay any fine due to its financial circumstances. However, the defendant does not make an application under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW). 2. I accept that payment of a fine might be difficult for the defendant, but the objective seriousness of the offence is such that it must be reflected in a significant fine. I accept that the defendant is unlikely to reoffend, but the seriousness of the offence is such that a fine must be imposed to send a message to employers that they must take their obligations to protect their workers from a risk of injury very seriously. To reduce the fine significantly would not provide the level of general deterrence that is expected, nor specific deterrence given the risk that Mr Kelly was exposed to, and which unfortunately came home causing Mr Kelly significant injuries which have left him permanently disabled. 3. The court is entitled to take into account the fact that the defendant will be liable to pay the prosecutor's costs when considering any monetary penalty to be imposed on the defendants, particularly in circumstances where there is evidence of a limited capacity to pay a fine. The costs payable to the prosecutor are an important aspect of the punishment of the defendants. The Court can also have regard to the defendant's own costs that it will have to bear as a consequence of a breach of the Act: Environmental Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 at [78]. 4. In Mr Williams' affidavits (Exhibits 1 and 2), he has identified that there is an issue with resources and the current future of the company is uncertain. There are two aspects to this, both related to resources available to the defendant. 5. The first is related to the bushfires and the likelihood that suppliers may not be able to meet their contracts. The second aspect is that a Bill which has been before Parliament which could mean that the properties that the defendant had previously purchased to future proof the business may not be available to be used as a resource. I accept that the defendant's future is uncertain, and I will allow some leniency in those circumstances. 6. As I have accepted that the defendant may have some difficulty paying the fine, I am of the view that to waive the payment of the prosecution's costs forms a balance between the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence and the defendant's somewhat limited capacity to pay. 7. The appropriate fine for the defendant is $200,000.00. The defendant is entitled to a discount of 25% for the early plea. COSTS 1. On the basis that the defendant may have some difficulty in paying a fine imposed, I make no order as to costs. PENALTY 1. I make the following orders: 1. The defendant is convicted. 2. The appropriate fine for the defendant is $200,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect a plea of guilty. 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. I make no order as to costs. ************ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 December 2020