Workcover v Visy Paper P/L [2015] NSWDC 284

Workcover v Visy Paper P/L [2015] NSWDC 284

The offender's failure to implement and enforce its own safety systems in the covered paper yard exposed employees and pedestrians to a foreseeable and actually foreseen risk of death or serious injury. The failures were endemic, the risk was significant, and Mr Soleski's death was relevant to objective seriousness and aggravation. Taking account of prior convictions, substantial harm, deterrence, remorse, cooperation, post-incident safety measures, and an early guilty plea warranting a 25% discount, the appropriate fine was $412,500.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for a Category 2 Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and fined $412,500, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'workplace Fatality' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'prosecution Costs']
['criminal Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'sentencing' 'costs'] ['duty of Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking' 'failure to Comply With Health and Safety Duty' 'risk of Death or Serious Injury' 'workplace Fatality' 'objective Seriousness' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'prosecution Costs']

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 a Category 2 Work Health and Safety Offence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fatal injuries sustained by Boge Soleski were an element or manifestation required to prove the offence under section 32(c) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.' "What penalty should be imposed for the offender's failure to comply with its health and safety duty, exposing an employee to a risk of death or serious injury." "How the offender's prior convictions, remorse, guilty plea, cooperation, and post-incident safety measures affected sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's failure to implement and enforce its own safety systems in the covered paper yard exposed employees and pedestrians to a foreseeable and actually foreseen risk of death or serious injury. The failures were endemic, the risk was significant, and Mr Soleski's death was relevant to objective seriousness and aggravation. Taking account of prior convictions, substantial harm, deterrence, remorse, cooperation, post-incident safety measures, and an early guilty plea warranting a 25% discount, the appropriate fine was $412,500.

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and fined $412,500, with 50% of the fine to be paid to the prosecutor, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The offender is convicted and fined $412,500.' 'Pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996, 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.' "The offender must pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed."]