WorkCover Authority of NSW v Charles William Trotter [2014] NSWDC 282

WorkCover Authority of NSW v Charles William Trotter [2014] NSWDC 282

Although the defendant was not greatly culpable and had significant mitigating factors including an early guilty plea and lack of previous convictions, the seriousness of the harm required a penalty. A fine calculated at 15% of the maximum, reduced by 30% for the plea, was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence
Outcome
The offender is fined $5,775; order for payment of moiety of fine to WorkCover; costs reserved pending submissions; no further penalty on related charge.
Legal Topics
['due Diligence' 'obligations of Controllers of Plant or Substances' 'workplace Safety' 'sentencing']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Law'] ['due Diligence' 'obligations of Controllers of Plant or Substances' 'workplace Safety' 'sentencing']

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 / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant failed to exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with s 10(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000' 'Appropriate penalty for breach given circumstances and mitigating factors']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant was not greatly culpable and had significant mitigating factors including an early guilty plea and lack of previous convictions, the seriousness of the harm required a penalty. A fine calculated at 15% of the maximum, reduced by 30% for the plea, was appropriate.

Court Disposition

The offender is fined $5,775; order for payment of moiety of fine to WorkCover; costs reserved pending submissions; no further penalty on related charge.

Orders

  • ['The offender is fined $5,775' 'The offender to pay a moiety of the fine to WorkCover' 'Question of costs reserved for written submissions' 'No further penalty in relation to the charge of breach of s 10(1) in matter number 179238.']