Citation: SafeWork NSW v Steggles Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 217
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 June 2024
Judge(s): Russell SC DCJ
Background
Steggles Pty Ltd operates a poultry processing plant at Beresfield, New South Wales, employing around 816 staff at the site. One of those employees, a process worker assigned to housekeeping and relief machinist duties, was working in the evisceration room of the plant on 6 October 2020.
The worker noticed a chicken carcass hanging by only one leg on the Overhead Shackle Conveyor Line. He reached up above his head to reattach the loose leg, and in doing so, his finger became caught in the moving conveyor. His hand was dragged approximately one metre through the rotating blade of the Hock Cutter, severing his right hand from his body.
Steggles pleaded guilty to a charge under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) of failing to comply with its duty as a person conducting a business or undertaking, thereby exposing the worker to a risk of death or serious injury. The maximum penalty for the offence was a fine of $1,766,130.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate level of objective seriousness for the offence, having regard to the risk, the available precautions, and the circumstances of the incident?
- What mitigating and aggravating factors applied to the sentencing of a corporate defendant?
- What discount should be applied to reflect the guilty plea?
- What was the appropriate fine, taking into account all sentencing factors including general and specific deterrence and the defendant's capacity to pay?
Decision
Objective seriousness: Russell SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offence as low to moderate. Despite the catastrophic and permanent nature of the injury, the court noted several factors that reduced objective seriousness. The risk had not previously materialised at this site; Steggles did not know the worker would intervene to reattach the chicken rather than allow the automated system to redirect it; and the worker's action was contrary to his training. There was an existing engineering control, in that birds attached by only one leg were meant to fall automatically into a chute and be redirected, which had been implemented specifically to address this type of situation.
Guarding and training failures: The court accepted that the guarding around the Hock Cutter was inadequate, exposing 70mm of the rotating blade, and that no physical barrier prevented access to the Conveyor Line while it was in operation. However, these failures were considered in context. Steggles had provided safe work procedure training, including a specific instruction not to reach into or over the conveyor, and the worker had been trained not to interact with live machinery. The absence of adequate guarding was the primary structural failure, but the worker's departure from safe work procedure was a significant intervening factor.
Mitigating factors: The court identified a range of mitigating factors in Steggles' favour. These included the company's prompt guilty plea (which attracted a 20% discount), its full cooperation with the prosecutor and provision of requested documents, the absence of prior WHS offences, genuine remorse, prompt remediation of the hazards following the incident, the engagement of an independent safety consultant, and the fact that it had implemented some safety systems, albeit insufficient ones, before the incident.
Penalty: After fixing the pre-discount fine at $200,000, the court reduced this by 20% to reflect the guilty plea. The resulting fine was $160,000. The court acknowledged this figure might appear low given the severity of the injury, but explained it was consistent with the low level of objective seriousness and the strong mitigating factors. Fifty per cent of the fine was directed to be paid to the prosecutor, consistent with the Fines Act 1996 (NSW). Costs were agreed between the parties and ordered against Steggles.
Orders Made
- Steggles Pty Ltd convicted of the offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW).
- Steggles Pty Ltd ordered to pay a fine of $160,000 (being $200,000 reduced by 20% for the guilty plea).
- Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine directed to be paid to the prosecutor.
- Steggles Pty Ltd ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.
Key Takeaways
- A catastrophic injury does not, by itself, determine the level of objective seriousness for a WHS offence. The District Court found low to moderate seriousness where an existing engineering control had been implemented to address the precise risk, and where the injured worker's action departed from his training.
- Where a worker acts contrary to established safe work procedures, that conduct is a relevant factor in assessing objective seriousness, even though it does not excuse an employer's underlying failure to provide adequate guarding.
- Genuine and prompt cooperation with regulators, timely remediation of hazards, engagement of independent safety experts, and a demonstrated safety culture prior to the incident can collectively constitute strong mitigating factors for a corporate WHS defendant.
- Under s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a 20% discount applied to reflect an early guilty plea, which the court recognised had saved substantial public time and cost.
- Capacity to pay a fine is relevant but not decisive in WHS sentencing. Where no submission is made on the point, the issue does not arise for determination, as occurred here.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 208
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6, 122
Cases:
- Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47
- R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
- 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
- Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
- R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
- Alameddine v R [2020] NSWCCA 232
- Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213
- BC v R [2020] NSWCCA 329
- Chiang v R [2016] NSWCCA 45
- R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
- R v Wang [2020] NSWSC 1335
- R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
- R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130
- BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176