SafeWork NSW v City Projects Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 364

SafeWork NSW v City Projects Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 364

The offender's WHS systems at its warehouse were inadequate, it used an unlicensed forklift operator without a proper risk assessment or safe system for unloading heavy glass crates, and obvious and foreseeable risks of death or serious injury could have been controlled by simple, inexpensive steps. The offender's culpability was at the high end of the mid-range; after accounting for substantial injury as an aggravating factor, mitigating factors including no prior convictions, good character, remorse, rehabilitation, co-operation and a 25% discount for an early guilty plea, the appropriate penalty was conviction, a fine of $150,000, payment of 50% of the fine to the prosecutor, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $150,000, with 50% of the fine payable to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's agreed costs of $17,527.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'forklift Operation Without High Risk Work Licence' 'risk Assessment for Unloading Glass Crates' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'aggravating Factors' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'forklift Operation Without High Risk Work Licence' 'risk Assessment for Unloading Glass Crates' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'aggravating Factors' '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 s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and thereby exposed Mr Rami Ealya to a risk of death or serious injury contrary to s 32 of the Act.' 'The objective seriousness and culpability of the offence for sentencing purposes.' 'The impact of aggravating factors, mitigating factors, the guilty plea, deterrence, remorse, rehabilitation, capacity to pay and agreed prosecution costs on the appropriate penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's WHS systems at its warehouse were inadequate, it used an unlicensed forklift operator without a proper risk assessment or safe system for unloading heavy glass crates, and obvious and foreseeable risks of death or serious injury could have been controlled by simple, inexpensive steps. The offender's culpability was at the high end of the mid-range; after accounting for substantial injury as an aggravating factor, mitigating factors including no prior convictions, good character, remorse, rehabilitation, co-operation and a 25% discount for an early guilty plea, the appropriate penalty was conviction, a fine of $150,000, payment of 50% of the fine to the prosecutor, and...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $150,000, with 50% of the fine payable to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's agreed costs of $17,527.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted.' 'Order the offender to pay a fine of $150,000.' 'Order that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "Order the offender to pay the prosecutor's costs agreed in the sum of $17,527."]