AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 October 2025

SafeWork NSW v JBS Australia Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWDC 433

Other
CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING BUSINESS OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS MITIGATING FACTORS

Citation: SafeWork NSW v JBS Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 433
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 October 2025
Judge: Russell SC DCJ

Background

JBS Australia Pty Ltd operates Australia's largest meat and food processing business, including an integrated feedlot and processing facility at Yanco, NSW. On 14 July 2022, William Gaynes, a cold-stores attendant employed at the site, was working in the chilled stack-down area (also called palletising area 37A) when he was struck by a reversing forklift. The forklift ran over his left leg, causing serious injuries that ultimately resulted in the amputation of the limb.

The chilled stack-down area had two entry points: a personnel access door for workers on foot, and a rapid roller door designed exclusively for forklift access. When set to automatic mode, the rapid roller door was activated by an electromagnetic induction loop sensor that responded only to forklifts, not pedestrians. On the day of the incident, however, the rapid roller door had been left in manual mode and left open, removing a key traffic management control.

SafeWork NSW prosecuted JBS under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). JBS pleaded guilty to failing to comply with its primary health and safety duty under section 19, thereby exposing Mr Gaynes to a risk of death or serious injury, contrary to section 32 of that Act.

  • What was the appropriate penalty for JBS's failure to comply with its WHS duty under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)?
  • How should objective seriousness be assessed in the circumstances, including the nature and foreseeability of the risk and the availability of reasonably practicable control measures?
  • What weight should be given to mitigating factors, including the early plea of guilty, the defendant's remediation steps, and its capacity to pay?
  • Were there any aggravating factors, including JBS's prior WHS conviction at the same site?
  • What discount was appropriate to reflect the early plea of guilty?
  • Should the defendant be ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs?

Decision

Russell SC DCJ assessed the offence by reference to the particulars pleaded in the amended summons. The failures identified were: not enforcing a requirement that the rapid roller door be set to automatic mode; not enforcing the rule that the personnel access door was the only means for workers on foot to enter and exit; failing to provide adequate supervision (including adequately training supervisors in their roles); and failing to conduct inspections and audits to verify that the controls were actually implemented. Each of these measures was reasonably practicable, and their collective absence created the conditions in which Mr Gaynes was struck.

The court considered objective seriousness, the foreseeability of the risk, the gravity of the actual harm, and JBS's prior WHS conviction at the same Yanco site. An aggravating feature was that JBS had previously been convicted of a WHS offence in relation to the same workplace, which weighed against the company on specific deterrence grounds. General deterrence also carried significant weight, given the well-known risks associated with forklifts operating near pedestrians in industrial settings.

In mitigation, the court accepted JBS's early plea of guilty, its remediation steps following the incident, its cooperation with the investigation, and its acknowledgment of the harm caused to Mr Gaynes. The victim impact statement, tendered with Mr Gaynes's consent, described his ongoing physical, emotional and financial impacts, including the amputation of his leg and his concerns about future employment and housing. Mr Gaynes has returned to work with JBS for 20 hours per week.

The court determined the appropriate base fine was $440,000, which it then reduced by 25 percent to reflect the early plea of guilty. The maximum penalty available for the offence was $1,860,843. The resulting fine of $330,000 was ordered, with 50 percent of that amount directed to be paid to the prosecutor under section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW).

Orders Made

  • JBS Australia Pty Ltd convicted on 15 October 2025.
  • JBS Australia Pty Ltd ordered to pay a fine of $330,000 (base fine of $440,000, reduced by 25% for early plea of guilty).
  • Pursuant to section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
  • JBS Australia Pty Ltd ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs in the agreed amount of $44,242.31.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that failing to enforce existing safety controls, such as requiring a rapid roller door to operate in automatic mode, can ground a WHS conviction even where a compliant system existed on paper but was not implemented in practice.
  • A prior WHS conviction at the same workplace is a meaningful aggravating factor in sentencing, relevant particularly to specific deterrence.
  • An early plea of guilty attracted a 25 percent reduction from the base fine of $440,000, producing a final penalty of $330,000 against a statutory maximum of $1,860,843, placing the offence at a level below the mid-range of objective seriousness.
  • Under section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), the court directed that half of the fine be paid to the prosecutor, a mechanism available to courts in WHS prosecutions.
  • The decision illustrates that general deterrence carries significant weight in WHS sentencing involving foreseeable pedestrian-forklift interaction risks in industrial workplaces, even where the defendant has taken post-incident remediation steps.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), cll 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 214, 215
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30E
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW), ss 6, 122

Cases:
- SafeWork NSW v JBS Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 678
- SafeWork NSW v JBS Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2023] NSWDC 473
- 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; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96
- Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266
- SafeWork NSW v Deicorp Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 194
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
- R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
- Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51
- BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176
- Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178
- R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432