SafeWork NSW v United Roof Tiling Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 14

SafeWork NSW v United Roof Tiling Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 14

The defendant committed a serious work health and safety offence because the risk of workers falling from height was obvious, serious injury or death was foreseeable, readily available protective measures were not used, the defendant failed to follow its own SWMS, and its director identified the inadequate awning support but left the site without ensuring the risk was addressed. A s 10 order and a fine at the lowest end were inappropriate. Allowing for mitigating matters, costs in a minor way, and a 20% discount for the delayed guilty plea, the appropriate fine was $120,000 from an undiscounted penalty of $150,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Breach of Work Health and Safety Duty / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The defendant was convicted and fined $120,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs of $19,000.
Legal Topics
['fall From Height on Construction Site' 'failure to Comply With Safe Work Method Statement' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'costs in Prosecution' 'section 10 Dismissal Refused']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing'] ['fall From Height on Construction Site' 'failure to Comply With Safe Work Method Statement' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'costs in Prosecution' 'section 10 Dismissal Refused']

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 Prosecution for Breach of Work Health and Safety Duty / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the defendant's breach of s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 by failing to comply with its duty under s 19(1)." 'Whether the offence was sufficiently serious to require conviction and fine rather than an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' "What discount should be allowed for the defendant's delayed plea of guilty." 'Whether parity considerations were available where only the defendant was being sentenced.' 'Whether agreed costs payable to the prosecutor could be taken into account in fixing penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant committed a serious work health and safety offence because the risk of workers falling from height was obvious, serious injury or death was foreseeable, readily available protective measures were not used, the defendant failed to follow its own SWMS, and its director identified the inadequate awning support but left the site without ensuring the risk was addressed. A s 10 order and a fine at the lowest end were inappropriate. Allowing for mitigating matters, costs in a minor way, and a 20% discount for the delayed guilty plea, the appropriate fine was $120,000 from an undiscounted penalty of $150,000.

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted and fined $120,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs of $19,000.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted and fined the sum of $120,000 with a moiety to the prosecutor.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs in the sum of $19,000."]