AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 17 September 2025

SafeWork NSW v Hilltop Meats Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWDC 363

Other
CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING BUSINESS RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY MAXIMUM PENALTY DETERRENCE

Citation: SafeWork NSW v Hilltop Meats Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 363
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 September 2025
Judge: Strathdee DCJ

Background

The defendant is a company that operates a beef abattoir at Young, NSW, employing approximately 121 workers. On 20 October 2021, a rendering supervisor climbed to a height of around five metres onto an unguarded, rotating screw conveyor (an "auger" used to transport processed meat meal) without having locked out and tagged out the machine's power supply. Another worker, unaware the supervisor was still on the auger, switched the machine back on. The supervisor's left foot below the knee was traumatically amputated. He was hospitalised for two months, underwent at least six or seven surgeries, and has not returned to work since.

SafeWork NSW prosecuted the defendant as a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). The defendant pleaded guilty on 11 March 2025 to a Category 2 offence under section 32 of that Act: failing to comply with its primary duty under section 19(1) in a way that exposed workers to a risk of serious injury or death.

The proceeding before Strathdee DCJ was a sentencing hearing. The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty, taking into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the offence, including the foreseeability of harm and the availability of reasonably practicable safety measures?
  • What weight should be given to the fact that other duty holders (including supervisory workers) also contributed to the circumstances of the incident?
  • Whether the defendant's post-incident treatment of the injured worker was an aggravating factor and what effect that had on any claim of genuine remorse?
  • What mitigating factors applied, including the early guilty plea, good corporate character, cooperation with investigators, and prospects of rehabilitation?
  • What fine was appropriate after applying the relevant statutory sentencing considerations and the 25% utilitarian discount for the guilty plea?

Decision

The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offence as significant. Guards for the auger had been removed for several months before the incident, a documented risk assessment from 2015 had identified the risk of amputation from screw conveyors but had not been reviewed since then, workers had developed their own unsafe ad hoc procedures for clearing blockages, and there was no enforcement of lockout/tagout protocols. All of these failures were known or ought to have been known to the defendant. The risk of catastrophic injury was both foreseeable and preventable.

On the question of multiple duty holders, the court confirmed that the existence of other persons who also bore duties under the WHS Act does not excuse a PCBU from its own obligations. The fact that individual workers, supervisors or managers also bore some responsibility for the unsafe conditions did not diminish Hilltop's culpability.

A significant aggravating matter arose from the defendant's post-incident conduct. After the incident, and despite expressions of ongoing support for the injured worker, the defendant called him in and issued him a written final warning. The court found this conduct weighed against granting any leniency under section 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which relates to remorse demonstrated by making reparation. The affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant in support of mitigation made no mention of the warning letter, which the court considered undermined the sincerity of the contrition expressed.

The court accepted several mitigating factors: the defendant's good corporate character and community contributions, its cooperation with SafeWork NSW, its low likelihood of reoffending given substantial post-incident safety improvements, and its demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation. An early guilty plea attracted a 25% discount on the headline fine, in accordance with the principles in R v Thomson; R v Houlton. The court assessed the appropriate pre-discount fine at $1,000,000, reduced to $750,000 after the plea discount.

Orders Made

  • Hilltop Meats Pty Ltd is convicted of the offence.
  • A fine of $750,000 is imposed (reduced from a headline figure of $1,000,000 by 25% to reflect the guilty plea).
  • A moiety (50%) of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
  • The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's agreed costs of $61,000.

Key Takeaways

  • A PCBU's duty under section 19(1) of the WHS Act is not diminished by the existence of other duty holders. Where workers, supervisors and managers also bear safety obligations, that shared responsibility does not reduce the PCBU's own culpability at sentencing.

  • Removing guards from dangerous machinery for operational convenience, failing to enforce lockout/tagout procedures, and allowing informal unsafe work practices to develop over months are factors that significantly increase the objective seriousness of a WHS offence, even where formal safety systems nominally exist.

  • Post-incident conduct toward an injured worker can affect sentencing outcomes. The District Court declined to extend leniency for remorse under section 21A(3)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 where the defendant had issued the injured worker a formal written warning after the incident, notwithstanding expressions of support made elsewhere.

  • Under the sentencing framework applying to corporate WHS prosecutions, a 25% discount for an early guilty plea remains available and was applied here to reduce a $1,000,000 headline fine to $750,000.

  • A 2015 risk assessment that identified the risk of amputation from screw conveyors, but was never reviewed or acted upon to address ongoing guard removal, was treated as reinforcing the foreseeability of the harm ultimately suffered.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19(1), 31, 32
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22

Cases
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
- Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
- Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384
- Haynes v CI & D Manufacturing Pty Limited (No 2) (1995) 60 IR 455
- Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 147 IR 117
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632
- SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Cai [2018] NSWDC 398
- Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
- WorkCover Authority of NSW v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151