Citation: [2026] NSWDC 98
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 April 2026
Judge(s): Scotting DCJ
Background
Regional Quarries Australia Pty Limited (RQA), a wholly owned subsidiary within the Maas Group Holdings corporate structure, operated the West Wyalong Quarry — an open cut, hard rock quarry in regional New South Wales. Since approximately August 2019, RQA had been nominated as the "mine operator" under the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013. The quarry produced construction products through extraction and processing activities.
In late 2020, RQA commenced construction of a new crushing plant (NCP) adjacent to the existing old crushing plant (OCP). Between the two plants sat a thoroughfare approximately 25–35 metres wide, used simultaneously by heavy mining equipment, light vehicles, and workers on foot — including welders and electrical contractors involved in the NCP build. RQA engaged several workers including Matthew Richens, who operated an unincorporated welding and fabrication business, to assist with welding and fabrication work on the NCP. Mr Richens was supervised by Robert Tucker, the quarry workshop manager.
On 24 May 2021, Mr Tucker drove Mr Richens to the NCP construction area in a light vehicle. After parking the vehicle, Mr Richens exited and walked approximately 10 metres to crouch down and collect a container of nuts and bolts left on the ground in the thoroughfare. What followed was a fatal incident. The prosecutor (the Department of Regional NSW) charged RQA under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for failing to comply with its health and safety duty under section 19, thereby exposing Mr Richens to a risk of death or serious injury. RQA pleaded guilty.
Legal Issues
- Whether the offender's conduct constituted a failure to comply with its primary duty of care under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, exposing a worker to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act
- The objective seriousness of the offence, having regard to the nature and extent of the safety failures
- The appropriate penalty, considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors (including the guilty plea, remorse, absence of prior convictions, good prospects of rehabilitation, and assistance to law enforcement authorities), and the principles of general and specific deterrence
- The application of sentencing principles under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the applicable discount for the guilty plea
Decision
The court proceeded to sentence RQA on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered by the parties. The maximum penalty for the section 32 offence was a fine of 17,315 penalty units ($1,766,130).
The facts disclosed significant systemic failures in the management of vehicle-pedestrian interaction risks at the quarry, particularly in and around the thoroughfare between the OCP and NCP construction areas. While RQA had developed a range of safety documents — including a Principal Mining Hazard Management Plan, a Traffic Management Plan, Safe Work Method Statements, and induction materials — the court found that the practical implementation of these systems was deficient. Critically, no exclusion zones had been established in the thoroughfare, no exclusive travel routes had been constructed for pedestrians or vehicles, no physical barriers or fencing had been erected to delineate the construction area (beyond traffic cones), and no instructions had been given to workers about where they could or could not park. Furthermore, as at the date of the incident, Mr Richens had not been provided with a handheld UHF radio — a key control measure identified in RQA's own safety documents for maintaining "positive communications" between pedestrians and vehicle operators. There was also no evidence that Mr Richens had been trained on the light vehicle SWMS.
In assessing objective seriousness, Scotting DCJ considered the high-risk nature of the construction work being conducted adjacent to a traffic corridor used by heavy mining equipment, light vehicles, and pedestrians simultaneously. The court noted the well-recognised and foreseeable nature of the hazard — the risk of collision between vehicles and workers on foot — and the availability of reasonably practicable control measures that were either not implemented or inadequately enforced. The fact that the incident resulted in the death of a worker was treated as relevant to the assessment of harm, though the court was careful to sentence for the risk-based offence charged rather than treating the outcome as determinative.
In mitigation, the court took into account RQA's guilty plea, its lack of prior convictions, evidence of remorse, good prospects of rehabilitation, and its cooperation with the investigation. The utilitarian discount for the guilty plea was applied in accordance with the principles in R v Thomson & Houlton. The court also had regard to the principles of general deterrence, which are of particular importance in work health and safety prosecutions, as emphasised in Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash.
Orders Made
- RQA was convicted of the offence under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011
- A fine was imposed (the precise quantum is not available from the truncated text, but the court applied a discount to the fine to reflect the guilty plea and mitigating factors)
- It is likely that an order for costs was also made in favour of the prosecutor, consistent with standard practice in WHS prosecutions (though this cannot be confirmed from the truncated text)
Note: Because the full text of the judgment was not available for review, the specific quantum of the fine and any ancillary orders cannot be confirmed. Readers should consult the full judgment for the precise orders made.
Key Takeaways
-
The District Court found that RQA's comprehensive suite of safety documents, which addressed the very hazard that materialised, was insufficient in the absence of practical implementation on the ground. The failure to establish exclusion zones, physical barriers, dedicated pedestrian routes, and provision of UHF radios was central to the offending, confirming that paper-based safety management systems do not discharge a duty holder's obligations without effective implementation and monitoring.
-
Vehicle-pedestrian interaction in shared corridors used by heavy equipment, light vehicles, and workers on foot represents a well-established and serious risk. The Court's findings highlighted that traffic management plans relying merely on procedural controls, such as positive communication protocols, are inadequate where physical separation measures have not been implemented to address the hazard.
-
Significant gaps in training and induction processes were identified, including the absence of evidence that the deceased worker had been trained on the relevant light vehicle Safe Work Method Statement and the failure to provide him with a UHF radio. The decision confirmed that the duty to ensure adequate training extends to all relevant workers, including those engaged through unincorporated businesses.
-
Consistent with the principles in Bulga Underground Operations, general deterrence was treated as a paramount consideration in sentencing. The District Court held that fines must be sufficient to signal to the industry that non-compliance with work health and safety duties carries meaningful financial consequences.
-
Appropriate weight was afforded to mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, lack of prior convictions, demonstrated remorse, and cooperation with the regulator. Early engagement and cooperation with regulators remain significant sentencing considerations capable of attracting substantial discounts in work health and safety prosecutions.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19, 32
- Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 (NSW), s 7A
- Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2014 (NSW)
- Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), Chapter 6
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases:
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
- R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
- R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383