Safe Work (NSW) v Schaefer Systems International P/L [2016] NSWDC 321

Safe Work (NSW) v Schaefer Systems International P/L [2016] NSWDC 321

The offender was convicted because, having a health and safety duty under section 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011, it failed to ensure adequate controls against the foreseeable risk of workers falling from height during the installation and thereby exposed Kyell Lewis to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32. The offence was mid-range in objective seriousness because the risk was foreseeable, the potential consequences were death or serious injury, serious injuries occurred, and simple remedial steps were available, but the offender's role was supervisory and Sundance was more culpable. Taking into account deterrence and mitigating factors, the appropriate fine...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $120,000 after a 20% discount for the plea of guilty.
Legal Topics
['duty of Persons Undertaking Business' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'fall From Height' 'safe Work Method Statement' 'supervision of Subcontractor Work' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['duty of Persons Undertaking Business' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'fall From Height' 'safe Work Method Statement' 'supervision of Subcontractor Work' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'prosecution Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offender failed to comply with its health and safety duty under section 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and thereby exposed Kyell Lewis to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32 of the Act.' 'What objective seriousness should be attributed to the offence, including foreseeability of the fall risk and availability of remedial measures.' 'What sentence and fine should be imposed having regard to deterrence, mitigating factors, the guilty plea, remorse, cooperation and absence of prior convictions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender was convicted because, having a health and safety duty under section 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011, it failed to ensure adequate controls against the foreseeable risk of workers falling from height during the installation and thereby exposed Kyell Lewis to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to section 32. The offence was mid-range in objective seriousness because the risk was foreseeable, the potential consequences were death or serious injury, serious injuries occurred, and simple remedial steps were available, but the offender's role was supervisory and Sundance was more culpable. Taking into account deterrence and mitigating factors, the appropriate fine...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $120,000 after a 20% discount for the plea of guilty.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'The appropriate fine is one of $150,000 that will be discounted by 20% to take into account the plea of guilty.' 'I impose a fine of $120,000.' 'I order that pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' 'I order that the offender pay...