UPDATE, Friday 12pm: Jury deliberations have commenced in the Warrnambool County Court trial of Midfield Meat.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Jurors retired to consider their verdict about 12pm Friday.
The verdict will bring to a close the 10-day trial which started last Monday and heard from multiple witnesses including Midfield boss Dean McKenna.
The meat processing giant has pleaded not guilty to two charges of failing to provide a safe working environment following an incident in December 2017 when long-time Midfield worker Pat Smith, 49, was killed by a large stag (steer/bull with one testicle) while working alone in an enclosed yard at a farm in Dunkeld.
Judge Michael O'Connell gave lengthy final directions to the jury on Friday morning.
He said there were four elements in the case that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Those elements are:
- That Midfield Meat was the employer
- There was a risk to employee health and safety
- There was a failure to provide and maintain a system of work that would have eliminated or reduced the risk
- That it was reasonably practicable for the employer to have provided and maintained that system of work to reduce the risk.
Earlier, Thursday: Midfield Meat failed to protect the health and safety of its employees and they deserved more, a prosecutor says.
The meat processing giant has pleaded not guilty to two charges of failing to provide a safe working environment following an incident in December 2017 when long-time Midfield worker Pat Smith, 49, was killed by a large stag (steer/bull with one testicle) while working alone in an enclosed yard at a farm in Dunkeld.
On Thursday Warrnambool jurors heard the closing addresses in the trial, which commenced last Monday and heard from multiple witnesses including Midfield boss Dean McKenna.
Prosecutor Megan Tittensor said Midfield field officers, who were required to enter enclosed yards on private properties to weigh and draft cattle, were undertaking "dangerous, risky business and they deserved more".
"Pat Smith's tragic death is an illustration of that failure by Midfield to protect the health and safety of its employees," she said.
Ms Tittensor said it was "not good enough" for Midfield to "hang their hat wholly on (Mr Smith's) experience and skill" and to believe it was OK not to separate the dangerous animal from the mob because it was a risk the victim thought he could handle.
She said it was not good enough to assume Mr Smith would rely on his memory of the agitated stag at that particular farm from six months earlier, or that Mr McKenna believed the death was preventable because the farm owner hadn't mentioned the agitated stag that morning.
Ms Tittensor said at the time of Mr Smith's death, Midfield should have had and maintained a system that involved a written risk assessment, and rules to ensure field officers weren't working alone in enclosed yards and that dangerous animals were immediately identified and separated.
But barrister David Neal urged the jury to consider whether those things were reasonably practicable.
He said jurors heard evidence that not all stags were inherently dangerous and that to immediately cull them was "nonsensical".
Mr Neal said the prosecution alleged that not having two people present on the farm in a working capacity was a criminal offence, yet it was OK on a private farming property.
"It doesn't make sense," Mr Neal said.
"The risk is exactly the same."
IN OTHER NEWS:
The barrister said at the time of Mr Smith's death, Midfield did have systems in place to ensure the health and safety of their employees, including finding the most experienced, skilled and knowledgeable field officers they could.
He said the jury heard over 50 per cent of field officers didn't "make the cut" during Midfield's probation period and those who did were required to use situational awareness and appropriate degrees of judgement when working.
Mr Neal said Midfield's system involved finding and employing staff who had decades of experience and could demonstrate the appropriate skill and judgement.
"And that is a good system," he said "It's a practical system to ensure the people they get can actually do the job on the ground."
Mr Neal said the jury heard evidence a written risk assessment wouldn't have made the situation any safer. He said no one could be sure what happened to Mr Smith on the day of his death but it was acknowledged something went wrong.
"It doesn't necessarily mean anyone is to blame, especially in a criminal sense," Mr Neal said.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content:
- Bookmark https://www.standard.net.au/
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines
- and newsletters.
- Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn.
- Tap here to open our Google News page.
- Join our Courts and Crime Facebook group and our dedicated Sport Facebook group
- Subscribe