NSW Caselaw
Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Inspector McGrath v Edmen Recruitment Pty Ltd [2012] NSWIRComm 108 Hearing dates: 11, 12 September 2012 Decision date: 03 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Industrial Court of NSW Before: Haylen J Decision: (a) in relation to SITA Australia Pty Ltd: (i) the defendant, SITA Australia Pty Ltd, is convicted of a breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (as particularised in the Amended Application for Order in Matter IRC 819 of 2011) to which the defendant entered a plea of guilty; (ii) the defendant is fined the sum of $130,000 with half that amount to be paid to the prosecutor by way of moiety; (iii) the defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutor in a sum as agreed or, in the absence of agreement, as ordered by the Court. (b) in relation to Edmen Recruitment Pty Ltd: (i) the defendant, Edmen Recruitment Pty Ltd, is found guilty of a breach of s 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (as particularised in the Amended Application for Order in Matter IRC 818 of 2011) to which the defendant entered a plea of guilty; (ii) the defendant is fined the sum of $117,500 with half that amount to be paid to the prosecutor by way of moiety; (iii) the defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutor in a sum as agreed or, in the absence of agreement, as ordered by the Court (c) in relation to Christopher Andrew Livingstone: (i) in relation to the charge against Christopher Andrew Livingstone under s 20(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (as particularised in the Amended Application for Order in Matter IRC 820 of 2011) to which he entered a plea of guilty, the Court, without proceeding to conviction, discharges the defendant on condition that Christopher Andrew Livingstone enter into a good behaviour bond for a term of 18 months; (ii) the defendant is to pay the costs of the prosecutor in a sum as agreed or, in the absence of agreement, as ordered by the Court. Catchwords: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2000 - s 8(1), s 8(2), s 20 -labour hire employee suffers horrific crush injuries arising from fall into automatic baling machine - pleas of guilty entered by three defendants - both labour hire employer and host client had electric isolation and tag out procedures - third defendant as site manager for host client had responsibility for the site and compliance with company's safety policies - failure to comply with isolation and lockout procedures - baler activated while employee working near open hopper - different circumstances of each defendant considered - serious breach found in each case - general and specific deterrence considered - numerous subjective factors considered - employee defendant makes application pursuant to s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - inter-action with s 28 and provision of Victim's Impact Statement - whether finding of "guilty" is a "conviction" excluding consideration of s 10 application - medical evidence accepted - no conviction recorded for employee defendant - 18 months' bond imposed - fines imposed on corporate defendants. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 389 R v Thomas [2007] NSW CCA 269 Rail Infrastructure Corp v Inspector Page (2008) 179 IR 398 Regina v Reinsch (1978) 1 NSWLR 483 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Inspector Cherie McGrath (Prosecutor) Edmen Recruitment Pty Ltd (Defendant in 11/818) SITA Australia Pty Ltd (Defendant in 11/819) Christopher Andrew Livingstone (Defendant in 11/820) Representation: Mr Reitano of counsel (Prosecutor) Mr Shume of counsel (Defendant in 11/818) Mr Hodgkinson SC (Defendant in 11/819) Ms Nomchong of counsel (Defendant in 11/820) Criminal Law Practice, Legal Group WorkCover Authority of NSW (Prosecutor) Sparke Helmore (Defendant in 11/818) Baker & McKenzie (Defendant in 11/819) Middletons (Defendant in 11/820) File Number(s): IRC 818 of 2011 IRC 819 of 2011 IRC 820 of 2011
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