Inspector Carmody v Luke Tsougranis [No 3] [2003] NSWIRComm 281

Inspector Carmody v Luke Tsougranis [No 3] [2003] NSWIRComm 281

Given Mr Tsougranis’ failure as a structural engineer to ensure safety of persons on site by checking assumptions about the stability of a freestanding wall and not providing for temporary support or issuing appropriate warnings, and in light of the similar degree of culpability as the owner/builder, a substantial penalty was warranted. A primary penalty of $27,000 was set, discounted by 10 percent for subjective factors, resulting in a fine of $24,300.

Parties
Prosecutor: Inspector Martin Carmody; Defendant: Luke Tsougranis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Sentencing After Finding of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant fined and ordered to pay prosecution costs after being found guilty.
Legal Topics
Imposition of Penalty, Objective Seriousness, Parity Principle, Occupational Health and Safety Duties of Engineers, General and Specific Deterrence
Occupational Health and Safety Industrial Law Imposition of Penalty Objective Seriousness Parity Principle Occupational Health and Safety Duties of Engineers General and Specific Deterrence

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inspector Martin Carmody

Prosecutor

Luke Tsougranis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Sentencing After Finding of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty should be imposed for breach of s 16(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 by a structural engineer?
  2. 2 How does the principle of parity apply where co-offenders have different levels of involvement and culpability?

Ratio Decidendi

Given Mr Tsougranis’ failure as a structural engineer to ensure safety of persons on site by checking assumptions about the stability of a freestanding wall and not providing for temporary support or issuing appropriate warnings, and in light of the similar degree of culpability as the owner/builder, a substantial penalty was warranted. A primary penalty of $27,000 was set, discounted by 10 percent for subjective factors, resulting in a fine of $24,300.

Court Disposition

Defendant fined and ordered to pay prosecution costs after being found guilty.

Orders

  • The defendant is found guilty of the charge under s 16(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983.
  • The defendant is fined the sum of $24,300 with moiety to the prosecutor.