SafeWork NSW v Cosentino Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 182

SafeWork NSW v Cosentino Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWDC 182

The offence was objectively serious and fell in the mid-range of seriousness. There was a foreseeable and foreseen risk of catastrophic harm, and the company failed to follow its own safe procedures. General and specific deterrence warranted a substantial penalty, balanced by mitigating factors including cooperation and lack of prior convictions. A fine of $200,000 was appropriate, with 50% to be paid to the prosecutor.

Parties
Prosecutor: SafeWork NSW; Defendant: Cosentino Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence
Outcome
Conviction and fine imposed
Legal Topics
Prosecution, Duty of Persons Undertaking Business, Risk of Death or Serious Injury, Objective Seriousness, General Deterrence, Specific Deterrence, Aggravating Factors, Mitigating Factors, Fine, Capacity to Pay, Appropriate Penalty, Unsafe Loading of Stone Slabs
Work Health and Safety Criminal Law Prosecution Duty of Persons Undertaking Business Risk of Death or Serious Injury Objective Seriousness General Deterrence Specific Deterrence +6 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SafeWork NSW

Prosecutor

Cosentino Australia Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for a Category 2 offence under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 in the circumstances of this case?
  2. 2 What aggravating and mitigating factors are relevant?
  3. 3 What is the objective seriousness of the offence?

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was objectively serious and fell in the mid-range of seriousness. There was a foreseeable and foreseen risk of catastrophic harm, and the company failed to follow its own safe procedures. General and specific deterrence warranted a substantial penalty, balanced by mitigating factors including cooperation and lack of prior convictions. A fine of $200,000 was appropriate, with 50% to be paid to the prosecutor.

Court Disposition

Conviction and fine imposed

Orders

  • The offender is convicted.
  • The victim impact statement of Mr Orkzai is taken into account.