45 In tracing the history of facts and circumstances leading to the inrush on 14 November 1994, the Coroner identified the specific failures that ultimately caused the inrush. While some of those failures relate to the Department of Mineral Resources, the majority of them go to the corporate undertakings involved in the research, planning, development and operation of the Gretley Colliery. It would appear that those corporate undertakings, taken together, were, at all relevant times, Oakbridge and the Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company. The Coroners Report identified the root cause of the inrush on 14 November 1996 as the failure by mine managers and mine surveyors at Gretley to be alert to the defects in the original mine plans upon which the mine plans accompanying the application for the lease by the Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company was based and, it would appear, decisions as to ongoing mining activities at Gretley were based on. Those management persons and the mine surveyors appear at all relevant times to be employees of Oakbridge. On the material before me it does not appear that those employees were simply supplied by Oakbridge to Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company in a situation akin to a labour hire company. In my view, on the material before me, it would appear that the overall mining operations that ultimately gave rise to the incident of potential risk were so connected with the business and activities of Oakbridge that they occurred in the course of the undertakings of Oakbridge. In support of that assertion and bearing in mind the cumulative causes of the inrush as identified in the Coroners Report, I refer to the following facts and circumstances as they appear relevant to Oakbridge and its conduct as an undertaking in relation to the s16(1) offences:
(i) The Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oakbridge. In numerous exhibit materials before me, particularly on letterhead, the Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company is described as a unit of Oakbridge Ltd: Incorporated in New South Wales.
(ii) The Gretley Colliery is owned by Oakbridge Ltd. Numerous exhibit letterheads and pre inrush mine maps in the exhibit material before me would appear to attest to that fact as well as document 6.29 and 6.37 in exhibit P1 before me. While the letterheads and logos on mine maps as depicted may not of and by themselves be ultimately determinative as far as Oakbridge's criminal liability is concerned, what they do give every appearance of portraying is an undertaking, namely Oakbridge, actively participating in the mining activities at Gretley - and utilising their name on letterheads and other mine maps as indicators of their corporate identity to assert that active role.
(iii) The Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Ltd was the unit (or wholly owned subsidiary) of Oakbridge granted the lease to operate the mine at Gretley. Oakbridge as an undertaking owned and operated mines other than Gretley Colliery, for example, Ellalong Colliery. As well, see part of document 6.39 in P1 which are extracts from a staff newsletter for Gretley employees that appear to emanate from the Human Resources Manager for Oakbridge, Ms Lorraine Sturgeon. Apart from any other information contained in those extracts, there is a Safety Alert entry drawing the attention of Gretley employees to a safety issue that had occurred at Ellalong in October 1996 with recommendations arising from the incident. That Safety Alert appears to indicate that Oakbridge took an active role in overseeing safety issues at its collieries, including Gretley. Also, in 6.39 there is a statement from Ms Sturgeon that:
Oakbridge Audit Team to carry out safety audit at Gretely Colliery in late November (more information later)
(iv) As part of its overall undertaking in mining activities, Oakbridge employed and appointed mine managers to its mines. At Gretley the successive mine managers that are identified are Mr Pala, Mr Romcke and Mr Porteous. Successive mine managers and mine surveyors at Gretley were employed by Oakbridge covering the three specific periods of the alleged s16(1) offences before me.
Those employees of Oakbridge, particularly the mine surveyors at Gretley, were directly involved in researching and drawing up the initial and ongoing relevant mine maps - particularly those that formed part of the submission by Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Ltd to the Department of Mineral Resources seeking the grant of lease for operations at Gretley. That application for the grant of the lease included, by necessity, depiction of the old Young Wallsend workings - the source of the inrush on 14 November 1966. That depiction had been undertaken by the mine surveyor at Gretley, an employee of Oakbridge, as a result of the research undertaken by him. In my view, the activities of the mine surveyor at Gretley appear to be activities undertaken by Oakbridge in order to facilitate the application for the mining lease made by NWCC.
(v) Oakbridge as an undertaking and its management employees were involved in the day to day management of Gretley Colliery at all relevant periods of the alleged s16(1) offences before me. Those employees include Mr Romcke and Mr Porteous. As well, Ms Lorraine Sturgeon, Human Resources manager employed by Oakbridge, was involved in disseminating information to persons working at Gretley Colliery concerning human resources issues, safety audits and ongoing mining activity reports including MW 50/51, the point of inrush on 14 November 1996. (see 6.39 in exhibit P1 already referred to)
(vi) In the overall management and operation of mines within the Oakbridge Group, Oakbridge appointed managers at its collieries. At those collieries those persons had positions and responsibilities under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982 to establish and maintain a regime to address the question of inrush and to ensure that there was a regime in place that ensured that reports of conditions in the mine were passed from one level of management to the next. That regime by way of an overall system of work would appear not to have been adequately followed at Gretley having regard to the Coroner's shortcomings of management as expressed by him.
(vii) Reference to document 13.18 in exhibit P1 is a letter under the letterhead of Oakbridge Pty Ltd - Gretley Colliery, which is an application dated 18 October 1996 to the Department of Mineral Resources under the Coalmines Regulation Act , s138(2)(d), seeking permission to:
Drive the installation roadway of MW48 and MW49 to a width of 6.0m. This width is required so that the miniwall equipment can be installed in these roadways. The accompanying plan A3-1996-47 shows the position of these roadways.
Further, document 3.07 in exhibit P1 is a letter dated 5 November 1996 under the letterhead of Oakbridge Pty Ltd - Gretley Colliery to the Mine Subsidence Board which states:
RE: GRETLEY COLLIERY - PROPOSED WORKINGS
With reference to your recent request for information regarding our proposed workings in the next 5 years, please find enclosed a copy of our plan A3-1996-49. These proposed workings are an indication only and actual mine workings may vary from this plan.
Both of those letters were signed by Mr Porteuos as the Mine Manager. The accompanying map referred to in the letter of 18 October 1996 outlines MW50/51 and identifies the roads to be installed in that area. I emphasise again that MW50/51 are the panels which were the site of the inrush on 14 November 1996. Those items of correspondence add strongly to the appearance that Oakbridge as an undertaking was an active player in decisions taken in relation to actual day to day mining activities at Gretley as well as future mining proposals. They support, in my view, the appearance of Oakbridge as an undertaking being inextricably caught up in relevant decisions about mining operations at Gretley.
(viii) In furtherance of the appearance arising from material before me as to Oakbridge's conduct in its activities at Gretley, it would appear that Oakbridge as an undertaking and its management were engaged in the most simple of tasks of appointing certain persons to be drivers of specified machinery at the Gretley Colliery (see document 43.03 in exhibit P1) as well as overseeing, as I have already stated, many of the management decisions and consequent activities of the Gretley Colliery.
(ix) Management employees and the then mine surveyor were, it appears, on notice in the period leading up to the inrush that there was an issue with water MW50/51 to the extent which was not clear but should have been followed through.
46 Overall, from the material I have considered, taken in its totality, it appears to me that Oakbridge as an undertaking was relevantly involved in the research, development and ongoing operation of the Gretley Colliery at all relevant times. In short, as an undertaking, Oakbridge's fingerprints appear all over the Gretley Colliery in all respects relevant to the s16(1) offences before me.