HEARING DATES: 10 December 2024, final submissions on

DECISION OF: His Honour Deputy President Lieschke

Prosecution - Young worker's forearm became caught in an unguarded chain drive while manually clearing stuck fruit from a pressure washing machine - The emergency stop control for the plant was not immediately accessible - Guilty plea to charge of failing to ensure, so far as was reasonable practicable, the safety of the worker - Guilty plea to breach of reg 211(2) safety duty to provide an accessible emergency stop control - Held: Serious safety failings of no guarding, no hazard identification and risk assessment, and informal training to manually clear blockages while the plant operated - Substantial post-offence safety improvements - Demonstrated contrition to victim - Convictions and fines of $120,000 and $9,000 imposed.

Sentencing Act 2017

Regs 208 & 211 Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012

Farrell v Paving Group Pty Ltd [2024] SAET 72

1. This decision explains the circumstances of the safety offences committed by Lochert Bros Pty Ltd (Lochert) against its young employee, Breanna Geehman, and the reasons for the penalties imposed by this court.
2. On 9 March 2023, Ms Geehman suffered a serious degloving injury to her right forearm while attempting to clear stuck fruit from an operating pressure washing machine. The lack of guarding and a safe system of work, together with a failure to provide reasonably necessary information, training, instruction and supervision, resulted in SafeWork SA charging Lochert with a breach of its primary safety duty.
3. The injury also highlighted that the pressure washing plant did not have an emergency stop control that was immediately accessible to the victim. As a result, Lochert was also charged for a breach of its reg 211(2) safety duty.
4. The two charges are as set out below in full:

1. The defendant, Lochert Bros Pty Ltd (ABN 73 007 629 094), on 9 March 2023, at Ramco in the State of South Australia, committed a Category 2 offence.

(A minor indictable offence against section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012).

• 1.1 The defendant had a health and safety duty:

• 1.1.1 At all material times, the defendant was a body corporate conducting a business of washing, grading and packing citrus fruit at 15 Virgo Road, Ramco SA ('the workplace').

• 1.1.2 At all material times, the defendant engaged workers, including Breanna Geehman ('Geehman').

• 1.1.3 The defendant had a health and safety duty prescribed by section19(1)(a) of the Act to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers it engaged while they were at work at the workplace.

• 1.2 The defendant failed to comply with that duty:

• 1.2.1 Whilst at the workplace, the workers were exposed to a risk to their safety because:

• 1.2.1.1 The workers were required to operate a high-pressure citrus washing machine ('the pressure washer').

• 1.2.1.2 The pressure washer contained side covers that could be raised and suspended in an open position.

• 1.2.1.3 The pressure washer was designed to keep operating when the side covers were in an open position.

• 1.2.1.4 The internal components of the pressure washer (including a motorised chain and sprocket) were accessible when the side covers were in an open position.

• 1.2.1.5 The workers were required to operate the pressure washer when the side covers were in an open position:

• 1.2.1.5.1 To view the pressure washer in operation; and

• 1.2.1.5.2 To clear any fruit that had become stuck ('the task').

• 1.2.1.6 The workers were required to undertake the task by using a 'poker stick' and their hands to manually dislodge any fruit that had become stuck.

• 1.2.1.7 The workers were required to place their hands and arms inside the pressure washer and in the vicinity of the motorised chain and sprocket whilst undertaking the task.

• 1.2.1.8 It was possible that a worker's hand or arm could become entangled in the pinch point of the motorised chain and sprocket whilst undertaking the task.

• 1.2.1.9 It was consequently possible for a worker to suffer serious injuries, such as degloving injuries and lacerations.

• 1.2.2 The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, safe plant and structures, because it failed to ensure that there was adequate guarding, such as an interlocked physical barrier, to eliminate and/or minimise the risk that a worker's hand or arm could become entangled in the pinch point of the motorised chain and sprocket whilst undertaking the task.

• 1.2.3 The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, a safe system of work for the task, because it failed to perform an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment process specific to the task and consequently:

• 1.2.3.1 Failed to identify the hazard presented by a worker undertaking the task whilst the pressure washer was unguarded;

• 1.2.3.2 Failed to assess the risk of a worker becoming entangled in the pinch point of the motorised chain and sprocket; and/or

• 1.2.3.3 Failed to ensure that appropriate control measures were put in place to eliminate and/or minimise the risk of that happening (by ensuring that there was adequate guarding such as an interlocked physical barrier and by ensuring that a Standard Operating Procedure or a documented safe work procedure was prepared in relation to operating the pressure washer).

• 1.2.4 The defendant failed to provide, so far as was reasonably practicable, information, training, instruction or supervision that was necessary to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety arising from work carried out as part of the conduct of its business because:

• 1.2.4.1 Geehman was not trained adequately or at all in relation to the safe completion of the task.

• 1.2.4.2 Geehman was not supervised adequately or at all in relation to the safe completion of the task.

• 1.2.4.3 Geehman was not provided with a Standard Operating Procedure or a documented safe work procedure in relation to operating the pressure washer.

• 1.3 The defendant's failure exposed an individual to a risk of serious injury:

• 1.3.1 Being the risk of serious injury arising from a worker's hand or arm becoming entangled in the pinch point of the motorised chain and sprocket whilst undertaking the task; and

• 1.3.2 Which risk materialised on 9 March 2023 when Geehman sustained serious degloving injuries and lacerations whilst undertaking the task.

1. The defendant, Lochert Bros Pty Ltd (ABN 73 007 629 094), on 9 March 2023, at Ramco in the State of South Australia, failed to ensure that the emergency stop control for the pressure washer complied with regulation 211(2) of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012.

(A summary offence against regulation 211(2) of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012).

• 2.1 The defendant had a health and safety duty under regulation 211(2).

• 2.1.1 At all material times, the defendant was a body corporate conducting a business of washing, grading and packing citrus fruit at 15 Virgo Road, Ramco SA ('the workplace').

• 2.1.2 At all material times, the defendant engaged workers, including Breanna Geehman ('Geehman').

• 2.1.3 The workers were required to operate a high-pressure citrus washing machine ('the pressure washer').

• 2.1.4 The pressure washer included an emergency stop control.

• 2.2 The defendant failed to comply with that duty:

• 2.2.1 The emergency stop control for the pressure washer was not prominent, clearly and durably marked and immediately accessible to each worker operating the plant; and

• 2.2.2 The handle, bar or push button associated with the emergency stop control was not coloured red.

1. Lochert entered guilty pleas within four weeks of its first appearance. The maximum penalties are fines of $1,500,000 for count one, and of $30,000 for count two.

1. The following facts were tendered by agreement.

1. Lochert Bros Pty Ltd (the company) is a family run business that was founded in 1963.

1. The company is located at 15 Virgo Road, Ramco in South Australia 5322 (the workplace).

1. The company conducts a business of washing, grading and packing citrus fruit.

1. The workplace includes various pieces of plant that are used in the process of washing, grading and packing citrus fruit, including a high-pressure citrus washing machine.

1. Robert Lochert is the owner and Managing Director of the company.

1. Brianna Geehman (Brianna) was 22 years of age at the time of the incident.

1. Brianna has been employed by the company since 2018 and at the relevant time was employed on a permanent part-time basis as a grader operator.

1. The purpose built high-pressure citrus washing machine (the pressure washer) was designed by the company and custom built approximately 30 years ago.

1. The pressure washer is made up of three main components: (1) the brush assembly component; (2) the pusher bar component; and (3) the high-pressure washer component.

1. The pressure washer operates in the following way:

• Fruit enters the pressure washer through the feed ramp via an ascending conveyor system before being moved forward by the use of pusher bars that are driven by a chain and sprocket.

• The rotating brushes combined with the high-pressure washer removes debris and residue from the fruit.

• The pusher bars move the fruit along and across the rotating brushes and onto the next stage of the washing and grading process.

1. The pressure washer is situated atop an elevated platform that is accessible via stairs leading to an elevated walkway located on either side of the plant.

1. The internal components of the pressure washer (including a motorised chain and sprocket) were accessible on either side of the plant via moveable side covers.

1. The side covers could be raised and suspended in an open position via hooks attached to the roof.

1. The side covers were not interlocked, and the plant was designed to keep operating when the side covers were in an open position.

1. The grader operator is required to access the inside of the pressure washer via the open side covers in order to view the plant in operation and to clear any blockages.

1. It was possible for the grader operator to attempt to clear blockages using a 'poker stick' (an approximately six-seven foot [2 metre] length of PVC piping located on the elevated walkway), and their hands to manually dislodge any fruit that is stuck whilst the pressure washer was operating.

1. The pressure washer's emergency stop control is in the form of pull cabling that was attached to a handrail located adjacent to one side of the elevated walkway that is connected to a ground level handrail that is also located adjacent to the plant.

1. The emergency stop control was the same colour as the hand railing and was not immediately accessible to the grader operator.

1. At around 11:15am on 9 March 2023, Brianna was in the pack house working as a grader operator.

1. As a grader operator, Brianna was required to operate the pressure washer, which included a requirement to clear any blockages at the end of the run (the task).

1. Towards the end of the run, Brianna raised and suspended one of the side covers to check that all of the fruit had been run through.

1. Brianna observed that a few oranges had become stuck at the top of the feed ramp.

1. This was a common occurrence, and the grader operator was required to clear any such blockages.

1. Whilst the pressure washer was still operating, Brianna used the poker stick to dislodge most of the oranges, however some were located in a position that could not be reached with the poker stick.

1. Brianna then reached into the pressure washer and with her left hand attempted to dislodge the 'stragglers' (i.e. the remaining oranges).

1. When doing so, the left sleeve of Brianna's Hi-Viz jacket became caught in the pinch point of the motorised chain and sprocket.

1. Brianna's left arm was then pulled by the rotating drive chain into the pusher bars.

1. Brianna was unable to reach the emergency stop control and immediately yelled out for help.

1. Another worker (Kerry-Anne Geehman) sprinted approximately 40 metres to Brianna's location where she pulled the pressure washer's ground level emergency stop control.

1. Brianna's left arm was removed from the pressure washer by emergency services before she was transferred via SAAS to the Waikerie Hospital before being transferred via RFDS to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

1. As a result of the incident, Brianna sustained a degloving injury to her left forearm between her elbow and wrist.

1. Brianna subsequently underwent surgery for a left forearm debridement wound that required a split thickness skin graft from her left thigh.

1. Brianna was eventually discharged home on 12 March 2023.

1. At around 4:46pm on 9 March 2023, SafeWork SA received a notification of the incident.

1. At around 11:08am on 10 March 2023, SafeWork SA Investigators and Inspectors attended at the workplace.

1. As a result of the incident, the company was issued with three (3) prohibition notices in relation to the pressure washer (WHSPN 309253, WHSPN 309254 and WHSPN 232477 relate).

1. On 22 March 2023, the company provided SafeWork SA with a copy of a report prepared by DIX Engineering in relation to safety upgrades that the company intended to conduct on the pressure washer.

1. Between 28 and 29 March 2023, SafeWork SA Inspectors conducted a general compliance inspection of the workplace. As a result of the inspection, the company was issued with a total of 38 improvement notices; including 18 relating to inadequate guarding.

1. On 16 May 2023, SafeWork SA advised the company that the three prohibition notices had been complied with.

1. Between 16 and 17 May 2023, SafeWork SA Inspectors conducted a general compliance inspection of the workplace. As a result of the inspection, the company was issued with a total of six (6) improvement notices and one (1) dangerous substance notice.

1. On 20 June 2023, the company advised SafeWork SA that it had spent a total of $12,669.98 on repairs / safety upgrades to the pressure washer post -incident.

1. On 3 October 2023, SafeWork SA advised the company that all improvement notices had been complied with.

1. On 6 June 2023, Robert Lochert participated in a voluntary audio-recorded interview with SafeWork SA.

1. The company has not previously been charged or convicted under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).
2. Additional information in tendered records of interview, show that while waiting for emergency services to arrive, a manager was able to release some of the pressure on Ms Geehman's arm by using a metal grinder to cut the chain, but he was unable to free her.
3. I have carefully read Ms Geehman's Victim Impact Statement, and have viewed an early photograph of her degloving injury over the upper side of her left forearm. The injury was extensive and severe. Ms Geehman underwent three surgeries, including a skin graft. The injury was very distressing, with Ms Geehman now much improved and mostly not conscious of it.
4. Ms Geehman had to take more time off work after her initial return due to psychological aspects of the injury. For unexplained reasons, she did not receive the workers compensation support she was entitled to in this period. As a result, she unnecessarily struggled financially while still recovering.
5. Ms Geehman appears to have made a good recovery. She feels supported by Lochert, including through the provision of suitable ongoing employment. She has also seen a lot of safety improvements in the workplace.
6. Lochert has recently responded positively to Ms Geehman's victim impact statement by acknowledging she should not have lost income support during her recovery, and by acknowledging the suffering and distress inflicted on her. Prior to Christmas in 2024, Lochert made a voluntary ex gratia payment to her of $20,000.
7. During the early investigations, Lochert responded to SafeWork SA's initial request for all relevant safety documents by stating that there was no design document, risk assessment, or safe use policy for the pressure washer. Lochert also had no training records, no maintenance records, and no toolbox meeting notes.
8. Lochert later provided the report and recommendations of Dix Engineering about installing an interlocked guard for the pressure washer. This was actioned by Dix at a modest cost to Lochert.
9. Lochert employs between 85 to 110 employees in harvest season and operates at two sites. It has a transport division, in addition to citrus.
10. After the offence, Lochert appointed Liz Fourie as a CEO, and tasked her with the responsibility of achieving and maintaining WHS compliance. A range of safety improvements have been implemented. These are outlined in two affidavits of Ms Fourie.
11. Ms Fourie's first affidavit of 12 November 2024 states that over $250,000 had been spent on various safety upgrades that went further than the 3 Prohibition Notices and 44 Improvement Notices (18 related to guarding) required. Ms Fourie expressed a view there was little need for specific deterrence as Lochert had achieved compliance and was committed to maintaining it.
12. In the sentencing hearing, it became apparent to Lochert that it still did not have a written hazard identification and risk assessment of the pressure washer plant. That is because it had relied on Dix Engineering for a compliant safety upgrade with an interlocked guard. Lochert was not in a position to know whether its revised safety system was compliant. Without proper hazard identification and risk assessments being prepared by, or with, appropriate experts, it did not know whether it had identified and controlled all risks of harm to the greatest extent that was reasonably practicable. As a result, Lochert arranged an external safety audit to take place after the sentencing hearing.
13. Lochert engaged HAPTA Compliance to audit its safety compliance at the Ramco site where the offence occurred, but not of the transport division. Lochert openly informed the court of the outcome and of its plans to adopt the recommendations for action. While many systems were found to be compliant, detailed recommendations were made for a general upgrade of WHS systems. Lochert plans to arrange for a similar audit of its other division and site, and to engage these consultants for ongoing safety advice.
14. Lochert has also received another report from Dix Engineering about modifications to the area of the 'foreign citrus line', as part of its overall safety improvements. While Lochert continues to rely on Dix's technical advice, Lochert no longer treats this as expert safety advice.

1. The offending was objectively serious.
2. Lochert breached its primary duty to its employee by contravening three obligations.
3. First, Lochert failed to provide and maintain safe plant and structures, in the form of an adequate interlocked guard on the pressure washer to control the risk of injury from the obvious hazard of a powered moving chain and sprockets. The washing plant had removable side covers, designed to minimise overspray, but these had to be opened for workers to look for and clear any blockages while the fruit was being processed.
4. The most effective hazard control was a simple engineering control of interlocking the side covers to prevent the plant from operating when they were open. This was installed after the offence in accordance with a Prohibition Notice. This control would have avoided a worker's safety being dependent on them avoiding the moving chain, sprocket, and pusher bar while clearing the blockage.
5. Second, Lochert had not carried out a hazard identification and risk assessment of the plant. This is a particularly significant failing given the pressure washer was important plant that was used daily, and the operator had to clear blockages after each run. Lochert did not even have the weak administrative hazard control of a warning sign.
6. As a result, Lochert had not implemented any hazard controls to eliminate or reduce the foreseeable risk of entanglement.
7. Third, Lochert did not provide adequate training, instruction and supervision to Ms Geehman. Robert Lochert knew all training was informal and without assistance from any documents. Ms Geehman was informally trained by another worker, her mother, just as she had in turn been informally trained on-the-job. The training included instruction to use the poker stick and hands to clear blockages while the plant operated. Nothing about the training was recorded, and neither had access to any safety documents.
8. Significantly, there was no instruction to stop the plant to clear blockages, as it needed to be operating for that purpose.
9. The Informant noted the regrettable attitude of Robert Lochert, as initially stated to SafeWork SA investigators, that the employer did not accept responsibility for the adequacy and standard of training, despite being aware of its informal undocumented nature.
10. The Informant submits the second charge is plainly made out by the inadequate stop controls.
11. Most significantly, Lochert's non-compliant stop button was not able to be activated by the victim while her arm was being pulled into the machine. The regulation required it to have been accessible to her. The machine was only stopped after a colleague, her mother, heard her scream and sprinted 40 metres to reach the stop mechanism on the ground level. This delay worsened the victim's injuries.
12. The Informant acknowledges the substantial safety improvements made by Lochert since the offences. However, as Lochert continues to operate a food processing and distribution business with hazardous plant, it will need to maintain constant vigilance and take all reasonably practicable safety precautions to remain compliant.
13. The continuing incidence of injuries from no or inadequate guarding, often preceded by a failure to conduct a structured hazard identification and risk assessment, highlights the importance of general deterrence in the sentencing process.

1. Lochert accepts the Informant's submissions regarding the objective seriousness of the offences, and general deterrence.
2. Lochert is deeply apologetic to Ms Geehman for its failings, and her resulting injuries and impairments.
3. Lochert submits a low need for specific deterrence based on the range of significant safety improvements that have been implemented. It acknowledges these should have been implemented long before these offences. The main changes have been to comply with all the regulator's Notices, employ a new CEO with a safety focus, make various upgrades to the safety of its plant, undertake risk assessments, implement a raft of safety policies and procedures, appoint trained HSR's, upgrade staff training, and engage a safety expert to audit their safety compliance and advise on improvements.
4. Lochert has demonstrated its contrition to Ms Geehman through its personal support and financial reparations. It continues to employ her in a permanent role, with training opportunities made available to her.
5. Lochert submits it has limited means to pay an expected fine. It has recently lost a major customer of its transport division, with a corresponding significant reduction in profit, until replacement customers can be found. It relies on an internal profit and loss statement for the year ended 30 June 2024, and an internal email from October 2024 which reported on reduced revenue. The pre-tax net profit was $1,277,000, although Lochert's citrus division was recorded as making a loss. It submits a lesser fine should be imposed in accordance with s 120(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2017.
6. The Informant responds to Lochert's incapacity to pay submission by pointing to the substantial net profit, the absence of any balance sheet, and no financial reports from the previous years. It submits there is insufficient evidence for the court to conclude Lochert does not have the means to pay an expected penalty. In these circumstances, a reduced penalty would have the likely effect of hindering its deterrent effect.
7. Lochert accepts that Mr Lochert did not initially fully appreciate the way in which the company's failings contributed to the accident occurring. It accepts his subjective good intentions were insufficient. Despite these previous views, Lochert's subsequent actions demonstrate its commitment to compliance and acceptance of responsibility for employee safety, so far as is reasonably practicable.

1. The guarding offence is an objectively serious breach of fundamental workplace safety obligations. The seriousness is compounded by the absence of any form of hazard identification and risk assessment, and by the requirement for a worker to access the moving plant next to a moving chain and sprockets. A serious injury was readily foreseeable and increasingly likely over time.
2. The foreseeable potential harm to an employee from the unguarded hazard was of worse injuries than eventuated. The trauma could have involved severe hand or finger injuries, or extensive damage to the soft tissues and major blood vessels of the inner forearm, and the victim could have experienced greater trauma from being trapped for longer in the moving plant, or before emergency services could extricate her.
3. The poor general standard was likely influenced by the Managing Director's lack of understanding or acceptance of Lochert's legal responsibility for workplace safety. His subjective intention to keep the staff safe was not matched by action. I accept the new CEO from 2024 has demonstrated a good understanding of the employer's safety responsibilities and is committed to Lochert's compliance. However, while she is influential, she does not control the defendant.
4. Regulation 208 - Guarding of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012 helpfully sets out the minimum guarding obligations of plant, as follows:

(1) This regulation applies if guarding is used as a control measure in relation to plant at a workplace.

(2) The person with management or control of the plant must ensure that -

(a) if access to the area of the plant requiring guarding is not necessary during operation, maintenance or cleaning of the plant, the guarding is a permanently fixed physical barrier; or

(b) if access to the area of the plant requiring guarding is necessary during operation, maintenance or cleaning of the plant, the guarding is an interlocked physical barrier that allows access to the area being guarded at times when that area does not present a risk and prevents access to that area at any other time; or

(c) if it is not reasonably practicable to use guarding referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), the guarding used is a physical barrier that can only be altered or removed by the use of tools; or

(d) if it is not reasonably practicable to use guarding referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or paragraph (c), the guarding includes a presence-sensing safeguarding system that eliminates any risk arising from the area of the plant requiring guarding while a person or any part of a person is in the area being guarded.

1. An interlocked guard is explained by reg 208(2)(b) as one that automatically isolates or closes down a hazard if a guard is opened, without the need for any other steps such as activating a stop control.
2. Regulation 208(5)(b) supplements the above with a rule that "if guarding is removed, that so far as is reasonably practicable, the plant cannot be restarted unless the guarding is replaced".
3. Regulation 211(2) helpfully sets out the minimum requirements of an emergency stop control for plant:

(2) If the design of plant at a workplace includes an emergency stop control, the person with management or control of the plant at the workplace must ensure that -

(a) the stop control is prominent, clearly and durably marked and immediately accessible to each operator of the plant; and

(b) any handle, bar or push button associated with the stop control is coloured red; and

(c) the stop control cannot be adversely affected by electrical or electronic circuit malfunction.

(a) In the case of an individual - $6 000.

(b) In the case of a body corporate - $30 000.

1. I add that if no guarding or emergency stop control is fitted to plant, compliance with an employer's primary safety duty would be very unlikely.
2. There was an emergency stop control in the form of a pull cord, and it appears to have been attached to a handrail on the upper level. However, it was not accessible to Ms Geehman from where she had to clear blockages. It was not "prominent, clearly and durably marked" or "immediately accessible to each operator of the plant" as reg 211(2)(a) mandated. Nor was it red.
3. This was a fundamental safety failure that had real consequences for Ms Geehman. It took her mother to hear her scream and then sprint 40 metres just to stop the drive chain. It is unknown how Ms Geehman would likely have fared if her mother had not heard her.
4. There is no explanation for why this basic safety duty was not complied with.
5. The broader context of widespread safety non-compliance, including the unusually high number of mandatory Prohibition and Improvement Notices, indicates the poor state of the pressure washer and emergency stop control were not aberrations.
6. The pre-existing broader safety deficiencies are not part of the charge and are not aggravating sentencing considerations. Lochert's response to them is however relevant to the assessment of its prospects for future safety compliance. As Lochert has now recognised, a range of safety improvements were much overdue.
7. I accept Lochert has made those improvements and has a far better understanding of the extent of its minimum legal obligations to ensure a safe workplace. I accept that Lochert is continuing to assess and upgrade all of its safety systems, not just those involved in the citrus division at Ramco, and it is accessing appropriate safety expertise to do so. By the time of final submissions, Lochert had arranged an expert safety audit of the citrus division, and was planning an audit of its other operations. The first audit demonstrated some additional safety improvements were needed, and these are being implemented.
8. I accept that if this commitment continues, Lochert has good prospects for future safety compliance. I agree with the prosecutor that there is still a need for specific deterrence due to the dynamic nature of the various hazards and risks associated with Lochert's business.
9. With respect to general deterrence, I repeat my remarks about guarding offences that were published last year.[1]

Unguarded moving machinery continues to maim workers decades after the criminalisation of employers who expose workers to this hazard, in circumstances where it is reasonably practicable to provide guarding. There is also a need to deter business owners from simply relying on the ignorant view that safety is a matter of common sense, or on vague verbal instructions.

1. I reject Lochert's submission that it does not have the means to pay a fine in the range that may be expected. While I accept it recently lost a major customer, and expects a reduction in profits, that is only one relatively minor circumstance about Lochert's financial means.
2. The tendered evidence relied upon is an incomplete view of Lochert's financial means. There is only one internal profit and loss statement, no balance sheets, and no tax returns. The evidence shows a substantial profit in 2024 in any event. I add that Lochert's internal accounting of a loss in some divisions, while achieving an overall profit, is not relevant to an assessment of the corporation's means.
3. Means are also more than an expected profit, revenue, or currently available reserves. Means includes an entity's accessible financial resources. A fine is not to be reduced under s 120 of the Sentencing Act 2017 just because it may or will cause some financial difficulty. If a fine does not hurt, it is unlikely to be an effective penalty.
4. I accept that Lochert contributes to its Riverland community, and strives to be a good corporate citizen.
5. I accept that Lochert fully co-operated with SafeWork SA and has no prior offences.
6. Lochert is entitled to a reduction in penalty of up to 40% for its early guilty plea. I consider the full reduction is appropriate due to the early plea and Lochert's demonstrated contrition though its support of, and payment of, reparations to Ms Geehman.
7. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, I start with a notional fine of $200,000 for the s 32 offence, and a notional fine of $15,000 for the reg 211 offence. After reduction by 40%, I impose respective fines of $120,000 and $9,000.
8. I record a conviction against Lochert Bros Pty Ltd for each offence.
9. I also order Lochert to pay a contribution of $1,210 to the Informant's legal costs, and Victims of Crime levies of $424 and $262.

[1] Farrell v Paving Group Pty Ltd [2024] SAET 72, [58].