SafeWork NSW v Bennett (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 453
Mr Bennett's culpability for both offences was in the mid range because he knew of the risk, or it was foreseeable, the likelihood of the risk was high when he permitted an unlicensed and inexperienced offsider to operate the crane, the potential consequences were death or serious injury, and simple, well-known steps were readily available without great burden or inconvenience. The s 19(2) offence was more serious because two persons were exposed to risk and suffered serious injuries. Although conviction and fines were required because of the seriousness of the offences, deterrence and the harm caused, the fines were reduced to reflect Mr Bennett's little or no present capacity to pay and...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 07 October 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence
- Outcome
- Mr Nigel Bennett was convicted on both summonses and fined; 50% of each fine was ordered to be paid to the prosecutor and he was ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'capacity to Pay a Fine' 'parity' 'totality' 'prosecution Costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Work Health and Safety Offences / Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What penalties should be imposed for the s 19(1) and s 19(2) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) offences contrary to s 32 of the Act.' 'How objective seriousness and culpability should be assessed where a crane came into contact with, or close proximity to, live overhead power lines and workers were exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.' 'What weight should be given to general deterrence and specific deterrence.' 'What aggravating and mitigating factors should be taken into account.' 'How the parity principle should be applied having regard to the related penalty imposed on Arkwood.' "How Mr Bennett's limited capacity to pay should affect the fines." 'How the totality principle should affect fines for two offences arising from the same facts.' "Whether Mr Bennett should pay the prosecutor's costs."]
Ratio Decidendi
Mr Bennett's culpability for both offences was in the mid range because he knew of the risk, or it was foreseeable, the likelihood of the risk was high when he permitted an unlicensed and inexperienced offsider to operate the crane, the potential consequences were death or serious injury, and simple, well-known steps were readily available without great burden or inconvenience. The s 19(2) offence was more serious because two persons were exposed to risk and suffered serious injuries. Although conviction and fines were required because of the seriousness of the offences, deterrence and the harm caused, the fines were reduced to reflect Mr Bennett's little or no present capacity to pay and...
Court Disposition
Mr Nigel Bennett was convicted on both summonses and fined; 50% of each fine was ordered to be paid to the prosecutor and he was ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.
Orders
- ['In District Court proceedings 2020/303207 (s 19(1) Summons): Mr Nigel Bennett was convicted on 12 August 2022.' 'In District Court proceedings 2020/303207 (s 19(1) Summons): Order Mr Nigel Bennett to pay a fine of $2,500.' 'In District Court proceedings 2020/303207 (s 19(1) Summons): Order pursuant to Section...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment