Citation: SafeWork NSW v Carroll Springs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 222
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 August 2017
Judge: Judge D. Russell
Background
Carroll Springs Pty Ltd operated an automotive suspension manufacturing and installation business at premises in Smithfield, NSW, employing around 15 people. One of those employees, a spring fitter, was tasked with using an angle grinder to cut metal brackets from the underside of a vehicle in May 2015.
The angle grinder involved had no guard fitted (the guard had been removed by a previous employee before the injured worker even commenced employment) and was fitted with a cutting disc that was both too large and insufficiently rated for the machine. The worker was unaware of either problem. While working under the vehicle, the disc either shattered or kicked back, striking him on the face and left shoulder.
The worker suffered a deep 8 cm laceration running from the corner of his eye to his cheek, in places cutting down to the bone, and a fractured cheekbone. He required surgery the following day. Carroll Springs pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), thereby exposing the worker to a risk of death or serious injury.
Legal Issues
- The objective seriousness of the offence and the appropriate starting point for any fine
- Whether any aggravating or mitigating factors warranted adjustment to the penalty
- The appropriate discount for an early guilty plea
- The offender's capacity to pay a fine
- The appropriate order for prosecution costs
Decision
Objective seriousness. Judge Russell assessed the offence as falling in the mid-range of objective seriousness. The risk was foreseeable and preventable: the grinder lacked a guard, it was fitted with an oversized and under-rated disc, and no safe system of work or adequate training existed for the use of angle grinders. The workshop supervisor knew workers were using the larger disc. The absence of a guard had persisted for the entirety of the injured worker's employment.
Mitigating factors. The court accepted several mitigating factors. Carroll Springs had no prior convictions and cooperated fully with prosecutors, providing documents promptly. The offender demonstrated remorse and had taken positive remedial steps after the incident, bringing its documentation and procedures into line with what should have been in place before the accident. The court found the guilty plea had been entered at the earliest possible opportunity, warranting a 25% discount.
Penalty. Starting from a fine of $100,000, the court applied the 25% early plea discount to arrive at a final fine of $75,000. The court also ordered that 50% of that fine be paid to SafeWork NSW as prosecutor, pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996. No evidence was put before the court that Carroll Springs had a limited capacity to pay, so that consideration did not arise.
Costs. The parties had agreed on an order for prosecution costs, and the court made that order accordingly.
Orders Made
- Carroll Springs Pty Ltd convicted of the offence under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011
- Fine of $75,000 imposed (reduced from a starting point of $100,000 by 25% for early guilty plea)
- 50% of the fine ($37,500) ordered to be paid to the prosecutor pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996
- Offender ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed
Key Takeaways
- The District Court assessed the offence as mid-range in objective seriousness where multiple concurrent safety failures existed (missing guard, wrong disc, no safe system of work, inadequate training) and the risk was entirely foreseeable and preventable.
- A 25% guilty plea discount applied where the offender entered its plea at the earliest possible opportunity, consistent with the approach in R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383.
- Under section 6 of the Fines Act 1996, the evidentiary burden of demonstrating limited capacity to pay rests with the offender; where no such evidence is adduced, the issue does not arise.
- Remediation after an incident, cooperation with investigators, acceptance of responsibility, and a prior clear record were all recognised as mitigating factors relevant to the final penalty.
- Systemic failures across training, equipment maintenance, and supervision can each independently ground liability under the Act; their combination bore directly on the court's assessment of seriousness, even where the penalty ultimately remained well below the $1,500,000 statutory maximum.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19 and 32
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A and 22
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6 and 122(2)
Cases
- Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96; 93 NSWLR 338
- R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
- Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178
- R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Veen v R (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
- Baumer v R (1988) 166 CLR 51
- BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176
- R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432