Inspector Nikolovski v McCrudden (No 2) [2011] NSWIRComm 73

Inspector Nikolovski v McCrudden (No 2) [2011] NSWIRComm 73

This was a most serious offence: simple and well-known safety practices, including use of safety mesh, harnesses, and risk assessments, were omitted in breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, resulting in a fatality. Each defendant's culpability was high due to failure to enforce or implement adequate systems despite knowledge of the risks and industry standards. Financial circumstances and first offender status mitigate the penalty but do not obviate objective seriousness. s 10 applications refused due to seriousness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Sentencing After Defended Hearing/plea / Sentence
Outcome
Convictions entered. Defendants found guilty and monetary penalties imposed with consideration of financial circumstances. Applications for s 10 orders refused.
Legal Topics
['workplace Safety' 'corporate Criminal Liability' 'sentencing' 'employer Obligations' 'director Liability' 'risk Assessment' 'fall Prevention' 'building and Construction']
['occupational Health and Safety Law' 'criminal Law' 'industrial Law'] ['workplace Safety' 'corporate Criminal Liability' 'sentencing' 'employer Obligations' 'director Liability' 'risk Assessment' 'fall Prevention' 'building and Construction']

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

Sentencing After Defended Hearing/plea / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate penalty for each defendant following breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 resulting in a fatal workplace accident?' 'What are the relative culpability and subjective circumstances relevant to sentencing the corporate and individual defendants?' 'Should s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 orders be made?' 'How should the bankruptcy or financial position of a defendant affect the penalty?']

Ratio Decidendi

This was a most serious offence: simple and well-known safety practices, including use of safety mesh, harnesses, and risk assessments, were omitted in breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, resulting in a fatality. Each defendant's culpability was high due to failure to enforce or implement adequate systems despite knowledge of the risks and industry standards. Financial circumstances and first offender status mitigate the penalty but do not obviate objective seriousness. s 10 applications refused due to seriousness.

Court Disposition

Convictions entered. Defendants found guilty and monetary penalties imposed with consideration of financial circumstances. Applications for s 10 orders refused.

Orders

  • ["CJM Roof Services Pty Ltd found guilty of breach of s 10(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act; fined $115,000 (half to prosecutor); to pay prosecutor's costs." 'Michael John McCrudden found guilty of breach of s 10(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act by s 26(1) operation; to pay $11,000 (half to prosecutor); to...