Inspector Hall v H Hassarati & Co Pty Ltd and Hassarati [2011] NSWIRComm 145

Inspector Hall v H Hassarati & Co Pty Ltd and Hassarati [2011] NSWIRComm 145

The breach was most serious and at least midrange in culpability because the company had assumed responsibility for supervising BU Hazardous' demolition work, knew through its supervisor that workers were using mattocks rather than the documented method and that some were not wearing harnesses, and failed to ensure that workers exposed to a six to eight metre fall risk had fall protection. Paul John Hassarati's culpability was concurrent with the company's by operation of s 26(1), and the seriousness of the offence and limited extenuating circumstances meant this was not an appropriate case for relief under s 10. Taking account of deterrence, early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution for Breach of S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With the Second Defendant Charged by Reason of S 26(1) / Penalty After Early Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Paul John Hassarati was found guilty and convicted; monetary penalties were imposed on both defendants with moiety to the prosecutor, and the defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['employer Duty to Persons Other Than Employees' 'director Liability' 'fall From Height Risk' 'safe Work Method Statements' 'subcontractor Supervision' 'guilty Plea' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'section 10 Application' 'moiety and Costs']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'industrial Law' 'sentencing'] ['employer Duty to Persons Other Than Employees' 'director Liability' 'fall From Height Risk' 'safe Work Method Statements' 'subcontractor Supervision' 'guilty Plea' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'section 10 Application' 'moiety and 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

Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution for Breach of S 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, With the Second Defendant Charged by Reason of S 26(1) / Penalty After Early Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the breach of s 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 was objectively serious and what penalties should be imposed' 'Whether Paul John Hassarati should receive the benefit of s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 despite being deemed guilty under s 26(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000' "What weight should be given to the defendants' guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition, safety systems, prior record and the company's prior conviction"]

Ratio Decidendi

The breach was most serious and at least midrange in culpability because the company had assumed responsibility for supervising BU Hazardous' demolition work, knew through its supervisor that workers were using mattocks rather than the documented method and that some were not wearing harnesses, and failed to ensure that workers exposed to a six to eight metre fall risk had fall protection. Paul John Hassarati's culpability was concurrent with the company's by operation of s 26(1), and the seriousness of the offence and limited extenuating circumstances meant this was not an appropriate case for relief under s 10. Taking account of deterrence, early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition,...

Court Disposition

Paul John Hassarati was found guilty and convicted; monetary penalties were imposed on both defendants with moiety to the prosecutor, and the defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendant Paul John Hassarati is found guilty of the offence with which he is charged and convicted accordingly.' 'A monetary penalty is imposed on the defendant H Hassarati & Co Pty Ltd of $175,000 and upon Paul John Hassarati of $7,500, with a moiety in each case to the prosecutor.' 'The defendants are to...