• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Category: Sentence

Parties: Andrew McColm (Department of Regional NSW) (Prosecutor)
Regional Quarries Australia Pty Limited (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
M Cahill with Z Bramley (Prosecutor)
C Magee (Offender)
Solicitors:
Lander & Rogers (Prosecutor)
Mills Oakley (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/157558

Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

1. Regional Quarries Australia Pty Ltd (RQA or the offender) appears for sentence after pleading guilty to an offence pursuant to s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act) in that it failed to comply with the health and safety duty it owed pursuant to s 19(a) of the Act and thereby exposed Matthew Richens to a risk of death and serious injury.

2. The maximum penalty for the s 32 offence is a fine of 17,315 penalty units ($1,766,130).

Facts

3. The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts. I have taken the entirety of this document into account when coming to an appropriate sentence. What follows is a brief summary of the facts relevant to the offender to permit an understanding of the sentence imposed.

Background

4. Maas Group Holdings Ltd (Maas) is a corporation with its registered office in Dubbo, New South Wales. RQA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Regional Group Australia Pty Limited (RGA). RGA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Maas.

5. From about August 2019 shortly after purchase of the property, RQA was nominated as the “mine operator” for the purpose of s 7A Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 (WHSMP) of the West Wyalong Quarry, an open cut, hard rock quarry, located at 331 Wargin Road, Wyalong (Quarry).

6. RQA operated a business of a “mining operation” at the Quarry, which was a hard rock quarry that produced construction products through extraction and processing activities.

7. RQA developed and promulgated a work health and safety management system for use at the Quarry:

(a) using work health and safety pro forma documents developed by both RGA and Maas; and (b) with support from subject experts who worked for both RGA and Maas, including:

(i) the RGA Area Manager for systems and compliance projects, Sean Murphy; and (ii) the Maas Work Health and Safety Manager, Todd Parkes and Christine Ashcroft.

8. Regional Hardrock (West Wyalong) Pty Limited (Regional Hardrock) is a corporation with its registered office also situated at 20L Sheraton Road, Dubbo and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Maas.

9. RQA engaged a number of workers including Matthew Richens, Mitchell Cassidy and Robert Tucker to undertake work at the Quarry. Mr Tucker was the manager of the workshop Quarry and his duties included supervising and managing workers who worked in the workshop and elsewhere, including Mr Cassidy and Mr Richens.

10. Maas Group Pty Limited (Maas Group) was the registered owner of a Nissan Patrol utility, registration number BQ 77 YP (the vehicle) which Mr Tucker drove in and about the Quarry. Mr Tucker held a driver’s licence that permitted him to drive light vehicles, including the vehicle.

11. Richens Welding and Fabrication was an unincorporated business operated by Mr Richens. On 1 February 2021, Richens Welding and Fabrication was engaged to assist with welding and fabrication repairs and installations on site, specifically with regard to the construction of a new fixed plant at the Quarry. Mr Richens was supervised by Mr Tucker.

Construction of the New Crushing Plant and the Construction Site

12. In or about October 2020, RQA commenced construction of a new crushing plant (the NCP), adjacent to an existing or old crushing plant (the OCP). Both the construction areas for the NCP and the OCP were located within the Quarry, about a kilometre from the office.

13. The construction of the NCP was “high risk construction work” within the meaning of Chapter 6 of the Regulations because it was being carried out adjacent to a traffic corridor that was in use by powered mobile plant, including heavy mining equipment (HME) and light vehicles and pedestrians.

14. The NCP commenced in the pit and included plant designed to transport rock from to the NCP for processing, including a series of conveyors, crushing plant, sieves and related plant and equipment.

15. Components of the NCP were fabricated on site in the workshop and were transported to and erected at the construction site.

16. The OCP and part of the construction area for the NCP ran parallel to each other for a distance of about 100 metres. There was a gap between them of about 25-35 metres (the thoroughfare).

17. The thoroughfare was used by a number of vehicles including:

(a) light vehicles used by the workers to transport workers, tools and equipment to the construction site of the NCP. These workers drove from the front entry of the Quarry and the workshop and parked in the thoroughfare in the vicinity of the NCP; (b) light vehicles used by workers at the Quarry involved in sales and production; (c) HME, in particular a large articulated dump truck, to take product from the OCP to the stockpiles; and (d) other assorted vehicles and mobile plant used in the construction of the NCP including a service truck fitted with welding equipment, a mobile crane and a forklift.

18. Prior to and as at the date of the incident, RQA had placed traffic cones to mark out the boundaries of the construction area of the NCP.

19. Large Industries Pty Ltd, trading as JLE Electrical (JLE), was an electrical contractor engaged to carry out electrical work involved in the construction of the NCP and to perform maintenance work on the OCP. At the time of the incident there were three JLE workers at the Quarry, who were supervised by David Faul, a self-employed electrical tradesman contracted by JLE.

20. Workers involved in the construction of the NCP, including the welders and the JLE workers, regularly worked on foot in the vicinity of the NCP and occasionally walked between the NCP and the OCP, traversing the thoroughfare, to undertake their allocated tasks.

Systems of Work at the Quarry prior to the Incident

Principal Hazard Management Plan

21. RQA had in place a safety management system which included a Principal Mining Hazard Management Plan (PMHMP) which identified hazards arising out of roads and other vehicle operating areas.

22. RQA also had in place:

(a) a Traffic Management Plan (the TMP); (b) West Wyalong Quarry WHS Risk Profile/Risk Register; (c) Plant Hazard Risk Assessment: West Wyalong New Fixed Plant; (d) Plant Hazard Risk Assessment Worksheet; (e) Safe Work Method Statement: New Plant Build (New Build SWMS); (f) Safe Work Method Statement: Conduct Light Vehicle Operation No 11 (the LV SWMS); and (g) Site Safety Rules for the Quarry.

The New Build SWMS

23. The New Build Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) identified the hazard posed by collisions between light vehicles, HME and pedestrians in the Quarry generally.

24. The specified control measures were:

25. Pos Com UHF 10 (a reference to positive communications which is dealt with below)

26. Flashing lights

27. UHF

28. Call up when approaching HME

29. TMP

30. Emergency response plan

31. Escorted visitors

32. Exclusion zones

33. Park up areas

34. On 13 October 2020, Mr Tucker was trained on the New Build SWMS.

35. On 23 February 2021, Mr Richens was trained on the New Build SWMS.

The SWMS – Conduct light vehicle operation No 11

27. On 25 February 2021, RQA developed a SWMS relating to the operation of light vehicles at the Quarry, being the LV SWMS. The LV SWMS identified the hazard of light vehicles colliding with other vehicles, plant or pedestrians at the Quarry.

28. The specified control measures were:

29. All vehicles must have an operating amber flashing light

30. Always contact the foreman or supervisor before entering any unfamiliar work area

31. All vehicles must park at least 30m from any HME

32. All designated light vehicle parking on site is reverse parking only

33. Light vehicles must give way to all HME

34. Speed limit 40 km/hr (or in line with site rules where appropriate)

35. Pedestrians must be vigilant of all mobile equipment at all times and use designated walkways where provided

36. Eyes and mind on task whilst on foot within operational areas

37. Mr Tucker reviewed and was trained on the LV SWMS on 25 February 2021. There was no evidence that Mr Richens was trained on the LV SWMS.

Induction training

30. Workers were required to undergo induction training when they first worked at the Quarry. Induction training consisted of workers being taken through an Induction Manual that was presented as a set of PowerPoint slides in printed form.

31. The induction training identified the hazard to workers of being struck by mobile plant and/or light vehicles at the Quarry.

32. The induction training contained a set of Site Rules, that included the relevant rules:

33. You must wear personal protective equipment as directed by your site supervisor (minimum requirements include hard hat, high vis shirt/vest and safety boots)

34. Please be aware of mobile plant at all times (traffic will abide 40km/h site speed limit)

35. Seat belts must be worn in vehicles at all times; Positive communication protocols are required on site (UHF channel 10)

36. Please familiarise yourself with the site map including traffic flow, first aid kits and emergency assembly points

37. The induction training material included the West Wyalong TMP. The TMP consisted of an aerial photograph of the Quarry as a site map marked with traffic flows and a set of dot points beside it. The top right hand corner of the photograph was marked with a 40km/hr speed limit for the site. The dot points stated:

38. UHF Channel 10

39. Light vehicles must have a flashing light and UHF

40. HME has right of way

41. Positive communication must be observed

42. A TMP will be issued on completion of the induction

43. If your vehicle is not equipped with flashing light or UHF, one will be issued by site, failure to return will be charged to you!!

Site Safety Meetings

34. In the months prior to the incident, RQA management convened monthly safety meetings on 25 February, 26 March and 16 April 2021.

35. On 26 February 2021 at a site safety meeting the minutes noted that the entry to the pit near the construction site of the NCP had been closed by the use of traffic cones and building an earth bund.

36. On 26 March 2021 at a site safety meeting, the minutes contained the following relevant entries (as written):

We still have signs out for the construction of the new plant. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of people working in certain areas and to always be aware of your surroundings.

We have brought in more handheld UHF to help as well.

Please till be aware of the construction site, come and grab a hand held UHF for everyone safety. Also we don’t walk around the stockpiles without having someone call out over the radio. Big machine don’t see little people.

37. On 16 April 2021 at the site safety meeting, the minutes contained the following relevant entries (as written):

Construction site: The new crushing area is still a construction sites until further notice. Handheld UHF’s can be picked up from the office. One person in each working group should have one on them.

38. No exclusion zones had been established, no exclusive travel routes had been delineated and/or constructed for pedestrians/ground workers or for vehicles moving in and about the thoroughfare. Further, no markers (other than the traffic cones referred to), fencing or barriers had been erected to mark out the construction area in which the NCP was being built.

39. No instructions were given to workers as to where they could or could not park.

40. As at 24 May 2021, Mr Richens had not been provided with a handheld UHF radio to allow him to maintain positive communications.

The Exposure to Risk

41. The thoroughfare between the OCP and the NCP construction area ran roughly in a north-south direction. Video footage of the area was captured via fixed CCTV camera.

42. On 24 May 2021, Mr Tucker drove the vehicle to collect Mr Richens from the front office of the Quarry and then drove him to the vicinity of the NCP.

43. When Mr Tucker arrived at the NCP he parked the vehicle on an angle to the throughfare, to the east of and approximately parallel to a mobile crane, so that the vehicle was facing approximately south-west.

44. Mr Richens exited the vehicle and walked to the tray of the utility. He then walked in a straight line for about 10m in approximately a south-easterly direction. He then crouched down to pick up a container of nuts and bolts that had been left on the ground in the thoroughfare.

45. At about the same time that Mr Richens exited the vehicle, Mr Tucker exited the vehicle and spoke to Aiden English, a first year apprentice electrician, who was having difficulty starting the forklift and had asked Mr Tucker for a jumpstart.

46. Shortly after Mr Tucker spoke to Mr English, Mr Tucker returned to his vehicle and entered the driver’s seat. He looked over his shoulder, out of the rear window, for other vehicles. He then placed the vehicle in motion in the thoroughfare and commenced to make a U-turn towards the passenger or left hand side of the vehicle.

47. Mr Richens was present in the thoroughfare and was exposed to the risk of being struck by the light vehicle driven by Mr Tucker.

Post Incident Remedial Measures

48. After the incident the offender reviewed its Traffic Management Plan for the site and reduced the speed limit applicable to all vehicle movements, including light vehicle movements within the site.

49. In or about February 2022 the offender introduced a revised SWMS in relation to Light Vehicle Operations.

50. In or about June 2022, the West Wyalong Quarry – Roads or Other Vehicle Operating Areas Risk Assessment was reviewed and updated. This assessment confirmed the ongoing potential for interactions between mobile plant and pedestrians as a site specific hazard. Following this review, RGA updated the Roads and Other Operating Areas Management Plan with respect to mobile plant and/or vehicles within the Quarry.

51. The offender also revised and improved their induction process to include:

(a) the introduction of a Site Induction Workbook which is to be completed by each inductee as part of the RQA Site Induction and the RQA Site Induction Assessment; (b) a drive around the Quarry where workers will be performing tasks; and (c) a revised Quarry Site Induction Assessment record.

The Offender’s Case on Sentence

52. The offender read and relied upon the affidavits of Christine Ashcroft and Candice O’Neill both affirmed on 15 April 2026, that can be summarised as follows. I will try not to repeat matters already referred to.

Background

53. The offender is the operator of the Quarry and is a wholly owned subsidiary of RGA. It supplies various products including aggregates, crushed rock and road base, fill material, sand and specialty rock. The products are sourced from the Quarry and other quarries in NSW and along the east coast of Australia.

54. Maas, RGA and the offender (the Group) currently operate around 41 quarries across New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. In the past six years Maas has acquired over 20 quarries. The rapid growth of the business presents challenges for ensuring health and safety across the Group.

Summary of Ms Ashcroft’s Affidavit

55. Ms Ashcroft is the General Manager for Health Safety and Wellbeing at Maas. She has approximately 22 years’ experience in various health and safety roles and commenced employment with Maas as the Group Health and Safety Manager in October 2021. Her role and responsibilities include:

56. Providing enterprise-wide health safety and wellbeing governance leadership across multiple business including the offender.

57. Management of the design, implementation and oversight of WHS frameworks, assurance programs and continuous improvement of safety systems.

Safety system prior to the incident

56. Ms Ashcroft stated in her affidavit that many of the quarrying businesses acquired by Maas since 2019, including the offender, operated with limited formal safety systems.

57. Ms Ashcroft deposed that the offender incorporates the health and safety management system framework of Maas and she has witnessed and personally contributed to the offender’s growth and commitment to improving health and safety at the Quarry:

58. Introduction of a safety management system which identified the risk of pedestrians coming into contact with light vehicles at the Quarry. The system included a Principal Mining Hazard Management Plan for “Roads or Other Vehicle Operating Areas”.

59. Implementation of several control measures to eliminate or minimise the risk of vehicle and pedestrian interactions at the Quarry including Pos Com UHF 10, flashing lights, UHF, positive communication protocols, TMP, Emergency Response Plan, visitor management and park-up areas.

60. Enforcement of the safety management system through communication with workers, safety observations and workplace inspections. Any issues identified were addressed on the spot, toolbox talks and/or monthly safety meetings.

Steps taken after the incident

58. Immediately after the incident the offender implemented a number of controls across the Group:

(a) pedestrian barriers were installed in areas where there was regular pedestrian traffic (including areas around the site office) to reduce the risk of vehicle and pedestrian interaction; (b) the new plant construction area was barricaded off to light vehicles; (c) a “park up” area was established outside of the new plant construction area for light vehicles; (d) a risk assessment and updated SWMS were produced which included the new controls for the new plant build and for vehicle and pedestrian interaction; (e) the traffic management plan was updated to more clearly show travel routes and clear pedestrian travel routes; (f) the site induction for all employees and contractors was updated to reflect the changes. All employees and contractors receiving training on the changes; and (g) the “1-2-3” horn sounding procedure for mobile plant including light vehicles was implemented.

59. Other steps taken at the Group-level and at the Quarry after the incident included:

60. In 2022 Maas implemented Critical Risk Standards (the CRS) including controls for the risk management of vehicle interactions with pedestrians. The CRS were applied across the Group and work in conjunction with the Mandatory Safety Rules. In 2024 the CRS was reviewed and updated.

61. Early in 2022 a new safety coordinator was introduced whose first remit was to conduct a gap analysis and review the offender’s safety system. This process identified deficiencies in the offender’s existing health and safety systems.

62. Throughout 2022 the offender deliberately developed a new safety system (the new safety system) that is a structured, system-driven and standardised framework. It is continually improving and changing to ensure alignment with listed entity expectations, address regulatory scrutiny and respond to legislative requirements and industry standards.

63. Towards the end of 2022 Ms Ashcroft established a centralised and consistent reporting system across all quarries of the offender, incorporating it into the Maas’s electronic reporting system. The increased volume and quality of data enabled meaningful trend analysis, learning and systemic improvement, with insights shared across the Group.

64. In January 2024 the Safety Activity Calendar (SAC) was introduced to establish mandatory safety interactions such as inspections, reviews, engagements and risk activities with the following functionalities:

(a) completion of SAC actions is reflected in leadership KPIs to ensure that safety performance is measurable and accountable at site, both regional and executive levels; (b) SAC supports the rollout of Group’s safety standards and minimum requirements, reducing variability and creating unified operating baseline. It allows Quarry Manager to move between sites with a clear understanding of the expectations and a known safety system; (c) SAC works in conjunction with the offender’s auditing systems, allowing the offender to ensure that the systems are in place and are effective.

Current safety system and culture

60. Mr Ashcroft stated in her affidavit that since her commencement in the role, she was worked hard to lead significant reforms to safety systems with the support of employees and the Board. As a result, Maas currently has a high-level safety structure where reporting lines are still evolving. The offender’s safety department in New South Wales now has two Safety Coordinators and one Safety officer for the offender’s concrete business in the state.

61. Ms Ashcroft deposed that Maas operates a single, integrated health, safety and environment (HSE) framework that sets the minimum standards for all businesses. Safety coordination is regionally distributed to keep support close to operations while still aligned with the Group’s oversight.

62. Ms Ashcroft further deposed that she has observed a significant shift in safety culture across the Group with the support from management, the Board and a Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee (HSEC). The Group is also committed to engaging positively with the Regulator.

63. Ms Ashcroft stated in her affidavit that the Group, including the offender, has not had an adverse vehicle and pedestrian interaction incident reportable since the incident.

Summary of Ms O’Neill’s Affidavit

64. Ms O’Neill has been the General Counsel and Company Secretary of Maas since October 2022. Her day-to-day duties include managing and advising on corporate governance processes, general transactions, contracts and general corporate related legal work.

Remorse and contrition

65. Ms O’Neill stated in her affidavit that the offender accepts its responsibility for its failures to comply with its health and safety duty, and that these failures exposed workers, in particular Mr Richens, to a risk of death or serious injury.

66. The offender acknowledges the deep impact the incident has had not only on Mr Richen's family, but on the community, industry, and the Group. The incident has had a profound impact on all employees and contractors at the Quarry.

Support for family members of Mr Richens and Mr Tucker

67. Ms O’Neill deposed that the offender and Maas provided support to Mr Richen's family by offering EAP services, paying for and attending Mr Richen's funeral to remove any financial burden, and supporting the family's workers compensation insurance claim.

68. The offender and Maas also ensured that Mr Tucker and all other workers at the Quarry were supported by providing paid time off work and ongoing and unlimited access to counselling services, including on-site services.

Safety systems at the Group-level

69. Ms O’Neill stated in her affidavit that quarries present significant health and safety risks and challenges. Consistent with the views expressed by Ms Ashcroft, she deposed that many of the quarries acquired by the offender had limited and rudimentary health and safety systems and management at the time of their acquisition. She further deposed that substantial improvements to safety have occurred within those businesses by utilising the structure and support of Maas and these improvements are ongoing.

70. Ms O’Neill deposed that the Group’s WHS management systems and practices are wide ranging and tailored to the risk profile of each business unit. The Group, supported by the Board, continues to strive for further growth and improvement in safety:

71. Each Monday a leadership meeting is held with the Senior Executives at Maas. During this meeting, it is encouraged that senior executives report any safety updates to the leadership group.

72. Monthly health and safety report for the Group compiled by Ms Ashcroft is presented to the Board. The report details benchmark frequency rates, incident and injury reporting, workers compensation matters, and compliance and verification activities.

73. Maas Board is supported by HSEC, which has a strong focus on ensuring that the Group has systems that provides safety outcomes within the business. HSEC has a broad range of initiatives:

(a) oversees and monitors HSE matters including their risks or impacts arising out of the Group's activities; (b) provides a strategic focus to assist and advise the Board to operate effectively, safely and responsibly; and (c) meets approximately every three months and each HSEC meeting involves discussion around the presentation of the HSEC Performance Report which details the safety performance, incident analysis, and proactive measures.

71. Ms O’Neill deposed that the Group's safety and health management systems and processes, driven by Ms Ashcrot, continue to improve and evolve.

Steps taken after the incident

72. Ms O’Neill deposed that the incident made the Group acutely aware that documented systems need to be implemented. HSEC has helped the Group to properly understand the strengths and weaknesses of the existing safety management system and to ensure continuous improvement in relation to health and safety in their business units.

73. Ms O’Neill further deposed that the offender is committed to ensuring there is not a repeat of exposing workers and other persons to the type of risk which occurred during the incident. She believes that the offender has significantly improved the safety of its workforce across its quarry businesses operated and will continue to strive for further growth and improvement in safety.

Community contributions

74. Ms O’Neill deposed that the offender, through the Group, is committed to supporting regional communities in meaningful and lasting ways. For example, in the financial year 2025, the Group supported initiatives including children's and mental health charities, grassroots sporting and community groups, and programs that drive local and social economic outcomes.

Consideration

75. I have had regard to the objects of the Act set out in s 3 and the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Objective seriousness

76. The offences involve some objective gravity.

77. I have taken into account the maximum penalty for the offence.

78. The risk of a collision between pedestrians and light vehicles and/or mobile plant was well known in the industry and had been actually identified by the offender in relation to the work at the NCP. In particular, the offender had identified the increased risk at the beginning and end of each shift when workers would be moving to and from the construction site. The offender knew that the thoroughfare was used by HME, mobile plant, light vehicles and pedestrians. The thoroughfare was a wide open space that was not delineated in a way that supported the imposition of traffic rules in the area, there was no designated parking area and no pedestrian walkways or refuges.

79. The offender knew of the availability of the ways in which to minimise the risk by delineating the space and imposing traffic rules, specifying dedicated parking areas and providing for pedestrian walkways through the use of temporary barriers such as concrete blocks or water filled plastic barriers, cones and danger tape. Those matters were simple, well known and not particularly expensive.

80. The likelihood of the risk coming home was low. The offence occurred during the construction of the NCP. The offender took some, but inadequate steps to address the risk. The offender should have addressed the risk by reference to the hierarchy of controls provided for in Part 3.1 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017, and if it had done so it would have introduced the engineering and isolation controls that were capable of eliminating the risk.

81. The gravity of the risk included a risk of death.

82. The prosecutor conceded that it could not establish that Mr Richens’ death was caused by the offender’s breach of duty, but only that he was exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

Deterrence

83. The penalty imposed in relation to the offences must provide for general deterrence. PCBUs must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. The community is entitled to expect that both small and large businesses will comply with safety requirements. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [180].

84. There is some need for specific deterrence in this case. The offender still operates a business that exposes a large number of workers to risks to their health and safety on a daily basis, in a dangerous industry. Conversely, the offender takes its obligations under the Act seriously and has implemented a robust safety system. It has also taken remedial steps to improve its processes as a result of the incident.

Aggravating factors

85. There are no relevant aggravating factors.

86. The offender does not have any record of previous convictions: s 21A(3)(e) Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender has been operating the Quarry since 2019, but it has a number of other operations that were probably in existence before that.

87. The offender is a good corporate citizen, particularly through its involvement in industry groups.

88. The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation: s 21A(3)(h) Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Prior to the incident the offender had in place a multi-layered and effective safety management system. The offender has improved its systems by reference to the incident and through independent safety initiatives designed to achieve that purpose.

89. Ms O’Neill, the company secretary of the offender, on its behalf, accepted responsibility for its actions, and expressed remorse: s 21A(3)(i) Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. I am satisfied that the expression of contrition is genuine.

90. The offender entered a plea of guilty: s 21A(3)(k) and s 22 Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offenders are entitled to a discount on penalty that reflects the utilitarian value of that plea: R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 and R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1 at [32]. The plea also indicates remorse: Borkowski at [32]. The plea was entered at the first opportunity after the Summons was amended following negotiations between the parties. The appropriate discount is 25%.

91. The offender co-operated with the investigation conducted by SafeWork NSW: s 21A(3)(m) Crimes *(*Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Penalty

92. Regional Quarries Australia Pty Ltd is convicted.

93. The appropriate fine is one of $400,000 that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.

94. I impose a fine of $300,000.

95. I order that the offenders pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

96. I order that pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fines are to be paid to the prosecutor.

**********