Akkari Group Pty Ltd ('the defendant') has pleaded guilty to an offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ('the WHS Act'). By virtue of the plea, the defendant has admitted that it failed to comply with its duty under s 19(1) of the WHS Act to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers.
The offence is recorded in the Amended Summons filed in Court on 30 April 2020.
[2]
BACKGROUND
The defendant was a registered corporation that conducted a business or undertaking involving the provision of building and construction services. At all material times, the defendant was the principal contractor of a construction site at 36-38 Showground Road, Gosford ('the site').
The defendant was developing a multilevel, mixed-use apartment building. It was responsible for ensuring the safety of workers at the site and had management and control of the site. The defendant employed Mr Maroun Akkari ('Mr Akkari') as a supervisor, who managed the day-to-day construction activities at the site and had authority to engage contractors to undertake the construction work. The defendant also engaged Mr Antonio Sam Frances ('Mr Frances') as the site foreman, who reported directly to Mr Akkari.
The defendant engaged Australian Consulting Engineers ('ACE') to design and prepare documentation for the development's structural elements, including the permanent shoring along the site's boundaries to protect neighbouring properties from subsidence or collapse due to any excavation work. To undertake excavation work and construct the building's foundation per ACE's design, the defendant engaged:
1. Citywide Civil Engineering (NSW) Pty Ltd ('Citywide') to demolish the existing structure, excavate the site, and supply plant and labour. The works were performed by Citywide's workers under the direction of Mr Akkari and Mr Frances. Citywide was not responsible for erecting any shoring.
2. Australian Pilling Group Pty Ltd ('APG') to perform the piling/permanent shoring work, which involved the use of a hydraulic drill rig and crew to drill holes and install steel reinforced pile cages. APG was not responsible for any temporary retention of adjacent properties and employed Mr Jack Killick ('Mr Killick') and Mr Milad Matti ('Mr Matti') to undertake the piling work, which included operating the drill rig.
3. Laing Concrete Pumps Pty Ltd ('Laing') to pump concrete into piles once reinforced cages had been installed. Laing employed Mr Scott Laing ('Mr Laing') and Mr Adam McCulloch ('Mr McCulloch').
In or around February 2018, ACE provided drawings for permanent shoring after excavating the basement levels that included several drawings of how the work was to be undertaken. The drawings contained the following notation:
'Temporary shoring will be required. The builder to provide subject to advice.'
As at mid-May 2018, the site had been excavated and an unsupported excavated wall without temporary shoring ran along the site's southern boundary, measuring 14.2m in length and ranging in height from 1.5m to 3.4m ('excavated wall'). It measured about 3.2m high in the southwestern corner.
On or around 15 May 2018, APG commenced drilling a series of holes for reinforced concrete piles around the site perimeter in proximity to the excavated walls, in line with the permanent shoring plan. Sometime between 15 May 2018 and 18 May 2018, the excavated wall partially collapsed and damaged the adjoining property's fence. A temporary timber fence was constructed.
On 18 May 2018, Dr Anthony Hasham ('Dr Hasham') from ACE attended the site. Dr Hasham met with Mr Akkari and informed him that the risk of further collapse of the excavated wall should be managed by providing temporary shoring. In particular, he suggested battering the wall back to a safe angle, covering it with a plastic vapour barrier, and placing strips of chicken wire held in place by pins along the excavated wall. Dr Hasham stated that the excavated wall could be shotcreted, which is an accepted method for temporary shoring by spraying concrete onto a wall.
Dr Hasham sent a report to Mr Akkari following the site visit, which said:
'The purpose of the inspection was to note the damages in the land and the fence in order to prepare a structural assessment report on its current condition.
This brief report is limited to the investigation of the area at the south common boundary line, therefore no conclusions can be drawn, or should be inferred, regarding any other areas.
…
In our professional opinion, the soil at this stage looks stable. However, we recommend the following steps be done to the unsupported soil face
Provide 100mm wide chicken wire at 1500cts, N12 pins 800mm long and to be covered by plastic sheets (Vapor Barrier) as shown in drawing 103 rev. C.
Construct the capping beam with starter bars as shown in drawing S103 rev. C.
Construction Dincel all above the capping beam to the natural ground level as shown in structural drawing no. 103 rev. C.
Back fill the batter happened at the land of 34 Showground road, Gosford with well compacted soil.
Re-construct the fence at the common boundary line.'
The defendant did not follow Dr Hasham's advice on how to temporarily shore the excavated wall. It did not secure the wall with chicken wire, cover it with plastic sheeting, install 800mm pins, or batter the wall back to a safe angle, as it remained almost vertical in some places. The defendant did cover part of the excavated wall with black plastic sheeting held down by bags of cement.
On 23 May 2018, Mr Killick and Mr Matti were drilling holes around the site perimeter. At approximately 3:00pm, Mr Killick crouched in the southwestern corner of the site and heard the wall behind him lose stability and it collapsed on him. Mr Killick was covered by dirt and black plastic up to his chest, and his hard hat was cracked by the force of the falling wall. He was trapped between the first and second reinforced concrete piles against the southern wall. Mr Laing, Mr McCulloch and Mr Matti freed Mr Killick from the debris by hand.
Mr Frances did not witness the incident and, when he attended the scene, he attempted to persuade the workers to report to SafeWork NSW that Mr Killick had fallen from the top of the wall and not been crushed by it.
Mr Killick was transported to Gosford Hospital for treatment. He sustained injuries including a dislocated femur, hip fractures and leg abrasions. Mr Killick underwent unsuccessful emergency surgery for the closed reduction of the dislocated joint. He was transferred to Royal North Shore Hospital for injury management and underwent further surgery that included reducing and internal fixation of the fractures by screws. Mr Killick was discharged from the hospital on 8 June 2018. He returned to work with APG around December 2018, undertaking suitable/light duties.
[3]
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & RELEVANT GUIDANCE MATERIALS
Clause 305(2)(b) of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 ('Regulation') provides that a person conducting a business or undertaking ('PCBU') must manage health and safety risks associated with excavation work, including the risk of persons being trapped by an excavation collapse.
Part 3.1 of the Regulation relevantly provides that, when managing health and safety risks, duty holders must eliminate risks as far as reasonably practicable. If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks, duty holders must minimise risks as far as reasonably practicable by isolating the hazard from any person exposed to it, or by implementing engineering controls. If the risk remains, the duty holder must minimise the remaining risk as far as reasonably practicable by implementing administrative controls.
SafeWork NSW's Code of Practice for Excavation Work, July 2005 ('Code'), was available to the defendant before and at the time of the incident. It offers relevant information on the measures that may be used to manage the risks associated with excavation work, such as engineering controls to reduce the risk of ground collapse and how to undertake excavation work.
[4]
SYSTEMS OF WORK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT
The defendant did not comply with its duty to manage the risk of workers suffering serious injury or death as a result of being struck, crushed, or trapped by the collapse of an excavated wall.
The defendant did not undertake a risk assessment that identified the risk of an excavated wall collapsing and the most appropriate controls, such as temporary shoring, which could have been completed with the assistance of a structural or geotechnical engineer, if necessary.
The defendant did not provide any temporary shoring to the excavated walls at the site during or immediately after it was excavated. The defendant could have developed an appropriate temporary shoring system before excavation works, and if it did not have the requisite competency to do so, it could have sought advice from a competent person. The need for temporary shoring was indicated in the permanent shoring and bulk excavation plan before excavation works began, and the defendant did not take steps to provide temporary shoring.
The defendant did not provide any temporary shoring system for the site's excavated walls, such as by shotcreting, using wall plates and raking shores, using steel sheet piling with anchors, or battering the wall back to a safe angle and placing chicken wire over the wall pinned and covered with plastic sheets.
After the wall initially collapsed in mid-May 2018, the defendant did not follow Dr Hasham's advice on how to provide temporary shoring to support the wall. Nor did it prohibit access to the wall after its initial collapse by creating, for example, exclusion zones to isolate workers from the risk of further collapse.
The defendant did not provide any information or instruction to workers about the risk of the excavated wall collapsing, or that they were prohibited from working in proximity to the wall. Workers had to complete the piling work in proximity to the excavated wall, and Mr Matti worked in the incident area drilling holes for two to three days before the incident.
[5]
STEPS TAKEN AFTER THE INCIDENT
After the incident, Mr Akkari again sought ACE's advice to develop a temporary shoring plan at the site, which the defendant implemented. While the permanent shoring work was completed, the defendant provided temporary support to the excavated walls.
[6]
SENTENCING
The penalty to be imposed must be one which will give overall effect to the policy of the WHS Act, in particular, ensuring the safety, health and welfare of workers and others on workplace premises. I have had regard to the principle contained within the WHS Act that workers should be given the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety and welfare from hazards and risks arising from work: s 3 of the WHS Act.
The Court is to be guided by the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ('Sentencing Act') which include:
1. Section 3A which sets out the purpose of sentencing;
2. Section 21A which sets out the aggravating, mitigating and other factors in sentencing; and
3. Section 22 which provides that a guilty plea is to be taken into account on sentence, as is the time when the plea was effectively indicated or entered.
The Court is to approach a sentencing exercise on the basis of it being one of 'instinctive synthesis': Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357.
The approach to sentencing has been identified by Russell SC DCJ in SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632 at [109] in this way:
'The court must identify all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and then make a value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; [2011] 244 CLR 120. This approach to sentencing, known as the "instinctive synthesis" approach, involves the making of a global judgement without any attempt to state precisely how any given factor has influenced the judgement.'
[7]
OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE
The duty of the defendant requires that it ensure the health and safety of workers as far as reasonably practicable. This duty is not delegable, and the defendant had control and influence over the workers at the site. The duty requires the identification of risks in the workplace and an assessment of measures to address such risks.
The primary factor to be assessed is the objective seriousness of the offence. Subjective factors play a subsidiary role: Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464, 474-5. Subjective factors should not be permitted to produce a sentence which fails to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence: WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700 at [31].
The gravity of the offence is determined by the extent of the duty holder's failure to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that its workers were not exposed to risks to their safety: Orbit Drilling v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399 at [62] (Maxwell P, Bongiorno JA and Kyrou AJA); Veen v R (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.
The objective degree of foreseeability is a matter for the Court to have regard to when considering the gravity of the offence: Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 ('Capral Aluminium') at [81].
An offence will be serious where there is an obvious or foreseeable risk to safety against which appropriate measures were not taken even though such measures were available and feasible: Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No. 3) (2005) 147 IR 117.
The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the sentencing process with regard to the Act in the matter of Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96 ('Nash v Silver City'). Justice Basten at [34], under the heading 'Assessment of Risk' said:
'The sentencing judge commenced his consideration with the proposition that '[g]reater culpability attaches to the failure to guard against an event the occurrence of which is probable rather than an event the occurrence of which is extremely unlikely.' However, the truth of that proposition depends upon other considerations, including (a) the potential consequences of the risk, which may be mild or catastrophic, (b) the availability of steps to lessen, minimise or remove the risk and (c) whether such steps are complex and burdensome or only mildly inconvenient. Relative culpability depends upon an assessment of all those factors.'
His Honour further observed at [42]:
'The culpability of the respondent is not necessarily to be determined by the remoteness of the risk occurring, nor by a step-by-step assessment of the various elements. Culpability will turn upon an overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions. Culpability in this case is reasonably high because, even if the pressure event of the force which occurred might not be expected to occur often, the seriousness of the foreseeable resultant harm is extreme and the steps to be taken to avoid it, which were not even assessed, were straightforward and involved only minor inconvenience and a little, if any, cost. That assessment will involve both objective considerations and a consideration of what the respondent's responsible officers knew or ought to have known.'
I accept that s 3A of the Sentencing Act is generally regarded as a codification of the common law principles of sentencing: R v MA [2004] NSWCCA 92. The purposes of punishment in the section are constrained by the sentencing principles that exist under the common law, such as the principles of proportionality and totality: R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272.
The Court is obliged to make an assessment of where on the scale of criminality the offence lies, referable to the maximum penalty prescribed by the legislature: R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304 at [17]-[18] (Latham J).
The defendant's duty required it to identify risks at the site and to adopt measures to eliminate or minimise them: s 17 of the WHS Act: Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 at [34] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
The risk of a person being injured when standing and working next to an unsupported excavated wall, which had previously collapsed, is easily foreseeable and glaringly obvious. It is difficult to comprehend how this risk could have escaped the notice of the defendant if it had had any mind to safety of its workers or people at the site.
Employers must take steps to protect workers against risks created by inadvertent conduct of workers in the course of their work, if it is reasonably practicable to do so: SafeWork NSW v Poletti Corporation [2019] NSWDC 491 at [88].
The excavated wall collapsed onto Mr Killick. He was covered by dirt and black plastic up to his chest. His hard hat was cracked by the force of the falling wall.
Three workers came to Mr Killick's assistance and freed him from the debris by hand. Mr Killick, unfortunately, suffered very serious injuries, in particular a dislocated femur, associated fractures of his left hip and abrasions on both knees and legs. He underwent emergency surgery and was discharged from hospital after 11 days.
However, I accept that it is the risk that I am assessing the seriousness of, and not the manifestation of it. At [53] in Nash v Silver City, Basten JA dealt with the proper approach to considering the objective seriousness of offences under the WHS Act, saying:
'It is important to note that the risk to be assessed is not the risk of the consequence, to the extent that a worker is in fact injured, but is the risk arising from failure to take reasonably practicable steps to avoid the injury occurring. To discount the seriousness of the risk by reference to the unlikelihood of the injury occurring is apt to lead to error. The conduct in question is the failure to respond to a risk of injury, conduct which will be more serious, the more serious the potential injuries, whether or not they are likely to materialise. The objective seriousness of the conduct will also be affected by the ease with which mitigation steps could have been taken.'
Where there was an obvious or foreseeable risk to safety against which appropriate measures were not taken, in circumstances where such measures were available and feasible, it will be a serious offence: WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151 at [37] (Kearns DCJ).
The objective seriousness of an offence under s 32 of the WHS Act is considered in the context of the graduation of offences contained in ss 31-32 of the WHS Act: Nash v Silver City at [54]-[56]. The matters relevant to objective seriousness for a s 32 offence include:
The potential consequences of the risk. Consequences may range from mild to catastrophic. Offending will be more serious where the potential injuries are severe, regardless of whether they are likely to materialize: Ibid [34];
The availability of steps to eliminate or minimise the risk: Ibid [34];
Whether those steps are complex, burdensome or mildly inconvenient, or if mitigating steps could easily have been taken, the offending will be more serious: Ibid [34] & [53];
Whether the risk was known or ought reasonably have been known to or identified by the offender;
Whether the risk was an obvious or clear one; and
The vulnerability of the workers exposed to the risk: SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 398 at [55] (Russell SC DCJ).
The following matters are those that are relevant in determining the objective seriousness of the offending:
1. The risk of a person suffering serious injury or death as a result of being struck, crushed or trapped by the collapse of an excavated wall was known, or ought to have been known, by the defendant. The hazard was obvious.
2. The excavated wall had previously collapsed about one week prior to the incident. The risk was likely to re-occur if the steps recommended by ACE were not taken.
3. The relevant guidance material available to the defendant stated that ground collapse was one of the 'primary risks' to be controlled in the excavation work. The Court accepts that the risk was foreseen by the defendant, and this has the effect of aggravating the nature and seriousness of the offence.
4. Prior to the incident, the measures required to control the risk that were known to the defendant were:
1. In February 2018, approximately three months prior to the incident, ACE provided the defendant with drawings of an appropriate method for temporary shoring; and
2. Following the collapse of the wall in mid-May 2018, ACE told the defendant's Site Supervisor, that the risk of further collapse needed to be managed by providing temporary shoring. ACE sent a report to the Site Supervisor advising that steps should be provided to support the soil face.
1. The likelihood of the risk occurring was high if the control measures were not adopted, particularly in the circumstances where the wall had previously collapsed and no adequate method of shoring had been provided, such as the method recommended by ACE. Further, in order to undertake the piling work, it was necessary for workers to work in proximity to excavated walls.
2. Mr Matti had worked in the incident area drilling holes for two to three days prior to the incident. At the time of the incident, nine reinforced concrete piles had been installed along the southern boundary of the site in close proximity to the unsupported wall.
3. The gravity of the risk was significant and included a risk of death. The Code provided that excavation failures are particularly dangerous because they may occur quickly, limiting the ability of workers (and in some cases others in the vicinity) to escape, especially if the collapse is extensive.
4. The speed of an excavation collapse increases the risk associated with this type of work, and the consequences are significant as falling earth can bury or crush any person in its path. A buried worker is likely to die from suffocation before help arrives, e.g. if the head is buried, or the chest is restricted by the weight of the ground.
5. There were simple, straightforward steps which could, and should, have been taken to avoid the risk. After the incident the defendant implemented a plan for temporary shoring at the site. The materials required to provide temporary shoring using the method recommended by ACE were readily available to the defendant and inexpensive ( steel pins/reo bars, chicken wire and plastic sheeting).
6. Mr Killick suffered very serious injuries.
7. The maximum penalty for the offence is $1.5 million.
Having regard to the seriousness of the risk and the straightforward steps that could have been taken to overcome that risk, as detailed in the Amended Summons, I am of the view that this offence objectively falls towards the high end of the middle range of seriousness.
[8]
DETERRENCE
In fixing a penalty in relation to these offences, an important objective feature is the need for specific and general deterrence. This is enshrined in s 3A(b) of the Sentencing Act. When examining matters of deterrence, both specific and general deterrence apply: R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68.
General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached. The fundamental duty of the Court is to ensure that a level of penalty for a breach will compel attention to work health and safety issues so that persons are not exposed to risks to their health and safety at the workplace: Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384 at 388 (Hungerford J).
General deterrence is to be approached in the context of the industry in which the defendant is engaged, the types of duties involved, as well as the broader hazards and risks associated with the industry. The construction industry is notoriously dangerous and involves the management of a number of different risks, including the risks associated with the excavation work.
The Court of Criminal Appeal in Bulga Underground Operations v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 at [177]-[180] reaffirmed the principle that both aspects of deterrence are matters which should normally be given weight of some substance in the sentencing process, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would allow a Court to depart from this rule, citing with approval the decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court of NSW in Capral Aluminium at [74]-[75] which said:
'[74] … It follows that both aspects of deterrence [specific and general] are matters which should normally be given weight of some substance in the sentencing process; and although there may be exceptional cases (see, for example, Page v Walco Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] NSWIRComm 39 at [40]-[43]), we would expect such cases to be very rare and where the relevant circumstances were held by the sentencing judge to be established, the judge must indicate with some precision the circumstances which had led to the exceptional course being adopted.
…
'[75] … Even where an offender demonstrates good character or a commitment to rehabilitation, the court may be obliged to have regard to the need for general deterrence: see R v Thompson (1975) 11 SASR 217 at 222. This is particularly so where the offence in question is prevalent in society and represents a serious threat to the community. The need for general deterrence in relation to serious offences under the Act is undeniable.'
General deterrence must be a significant feature of the sentence imposed upon the defendant. It can be appropriately used to direct the industry's attention to the consequences of inattention and the need for greater concentration on the potential risks of death or serious injury associated with working in an industry that could be struck, crushed or trapped by the collapse of an excavated wall. This is emphasised by the fact that the same wall had collapsed about one week prior to this incident.
In this case, the penalty needs to be loaded for general and specific deterrence given that the defendant was on notice of the risk and did very little about it. Ground collapse is one of the primary risks to be controlled in excavation work. The ground had already collapsed one week previously, yet the defendant all but ignored its duties.
A clear message needs to be sent to employers generally, and in the building and construction industry more specifically, that breaches of the WHS Act in the face of known, serious and identified risks are to be treated seriously when they come before the courts. In particular, a message needs to be sent to principal contractors of construction sites that they cannot take shortcuts when it comes to managing serious and known risks to which their subcontracted workers may be exposed.
In relation to specific deterrence, the attitude of the defendant to questions of workplace safety and any steps taken to improve the safety of its worksites following a breach of a duty are relevant, as is the propensity for the defendant to reoffend. I note that the defendant continues to perform the same work as it did when the incident occurred.
I accept that the prospects of rehabilitation of the defendant are reasonable, but the need for an element of specific deterrence is still very necessary given these circumstances where there had been a previous collapse, and expert advise was sought, yet not adhered to.
[9]
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
The injury, harm and loss caused by this offence was substantial: s 21A(2)(g) of the Sentencing Act. For an aggravating factor to be established, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the harm was greater or more deleterious than may ordinarily be expected for the offence in question: R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 at [26].
It is not necessary that an injury occurred for the offence to be established, the creation of a risk is sufficient. In this circumstance, Mr Killick was very seriously injured, and has been left with significant impairments that will no doubt persist for the rest of his life.
[10]
MITIGATING FACTORS
The defendant entered a plea of guilty, and as such this plea is a mitigating factor: s 21A(3)(k) of the Sentencing Act.
The defendant co-operated with the SafeWork investigation: s 21A(3)(m) of the Sentencing Act.
The prosecutor concedes that the defendant is entitled to a discount for the utilitarian benefit of the plea and I accept that the timing of when the plea is entered is a primary consideration. The Summons was filed on 30 April 2020 and the plea was entered on 27 April 2021, after nine Court mentions. However, there were other related matters and a charge against a co-defendant which was withdrawn. Therefore, I will allow the deduction of 25% for the utilitarian value of the pleas in accordance with the principles set out in R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383: s 21A(3)(k) of the Sentencing Act.
The defendant has made a number of significant changes to its systems of work since the incident, and I accept that as at that point in time it was committed to do so. I accept that the defendant has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation: s 21A(3)(h) of the Sentencing Act.
Section 21A(3)(i) of the Sentencing Act provides that remorse may be taken into account as a mitigating factor. Exhibit 1 (Affidavit of Maroun Akkari at [35]-[38]) apologises for its failures, acknowledges the seriousness of its breaches and expresses remorse for what happened to Mr Killick, and the fact that members of the general public may have been put at risk.
Having said that, the objective seriousness of the offence is such that it must be reflected in a significant fine. I accept that the defendant may be unlikely to reoffend, but the seriousness of the offence is such that a fine must be imposed to send a message to employers that they must take their obligations to protect their workers from a risk of injury very seriously. To reduce the fine significantly would not provide the level of general deterrence that is expected, nor specific deterrence, given the risk that Mr Killick was exposed to.
The appropriate fine for the defendant is $400,000.00. The defendant is entitled to a discount of 25% for the early plea.
[11]
PENALTY
I make the following orders:
1. The defendant is convicted.
2. The appropriate fine is $400,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% for the utilitarian value of the plea.
3. I order the defendant to pay a fine in the sum of $300,000.00.
4. 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor, pursuant to s133(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW); and
5. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 07 June 2022