NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 201 Hearing dates: 3 June 2022 Date of orders: 10 June 2022 Decision date: 10 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Russell SC DCJ Decision: (1) Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited was convicted on 3 June 2022. (2) Order Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited to pay a fine of $150,000. (3) Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. (4) Order Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited to pay the prosecutor's costs agreed in the amount of $102,000. 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 – general deterrence – specific deterrence – capacity to pay appropriate penalty – victim impact statement
COSTS – prosecution costs OTHER — defendant engaged contractor to operate a crane to load a dismantled centrifuge onto a flatbed truck – boom of the crane came into contact with, or in close proximity to, live overhead power lines – two workers employed by the defendant suffered electric shocks – failure to conduct a site-specific risk assessment – no appropriate SWMS – failure to adequately instruct and train employees – failure to observe and warn crane operator – failure to insist upon using a qualified dogman Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 26, 27, 28, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30E Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6, 122 Work Health & Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32 Cases Cited: Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 SafeWork NSW v Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited [2022] NSWDC 89 Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Scott (Prosecutor) M Baroni (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate