Kanawati v L'HARIDON Bight Mining Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   KANAWATI -v- L'HARIDON BIGHT MINING PTY LTD [2023] WASC 262

CORAM:   STRK J

HEARD:   1 SEPTEMBER 2021

DELIVERED          :   17 JULY 2023

FILE NO/S:   SJA 1021 of 2021

BETWEEN:   MAHAMMED SALIM KANAWATI

Appellant

AND

L'HARIDON BIGHT MINING PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   MAGISTRATE E DE VRIES

File Number            :   CA 708/2019


Catchwords:

Criminal law - State appeal against sentence - Respondent convicted on plea of guilty - Fine imposed - Whether sentence imposed manifestly inadequate

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA)
Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence set aside
Respondent to be resentenced

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : J T Bishop
Respondent : B W Standish

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Solicitor's Office
Respondent : Max Crispe

Cases referred to in decision:

Al Hussein v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2014] WASC 296

Ausdrill Ltd v Hanekom [2009] WASC 307

Ayton v City of Armadale [2020] WASCA 39

Balla v Jason Aaron Nominees Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 161

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Capon [2014] WASC 267

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Capon [2014] WASC 267 (S)

C E Oates & Sons Pty Ltd t/as Narrogin Retravision v Balla [2015] WASC 144

CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; (2015) 256 CLR 346

Debri Pty Ltd t/as R & K Installations v Morrison [2012] WASC 364

Fremantle Steam Laundry Pty Ltd v Shepherd [2000] WASCA 17

Gaskell v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8

Haysdale Nominees Pty Ltd v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435

Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd v Briggs [2002] WASCA 53

Hussaini v Szolnoski [2013] WASC 64; (2013) 227 A Crim R 586

Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd v Hanekom [2010] WASC 259

Keating v Fry [2012] WASC 15; (2012) 217 IR 186

Morrison v Winton (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960698, 12 December 1996)

Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287

Palynolab Resources Pty Ltd v Morrison (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960477, 22 August 1996)

Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473

Scherini v Cleveland Freightlines Pty Ltd [2018] WASC 5

Sgroi v The Queen (1989) 40 A Crim R 197

Shepherd v Co‑operative Bulk Handling [2001] WASCA 413

The State of Western Australia v AHD [2021] WASCA 13

The State of Western Australia v Saleh [2020] WASCA 205

The State of Western Australia v Wilson [2015] WASCA 119

STRK J:

Introduction

  1. On 8 December 2020, the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge that on 18 May 2017, being an employer at a mine, it failed, so far as it was practicable, to provide and maintain a working environment in which its employee was not exposed to hazards, and by that contravention caused serious…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kanawati v L'HARIDON Bight Mining Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] WASC 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia granted leave to the State to appeal the sentence imposed on L'Haridon Bight Mining Pty Ltd (the respondent) by the Magistrates Court, finding the sentence manifestly inadequate. The respondent was convicted of a breach of its duty under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA) to provide and maintain a safe working environment, which resulted in an employee suffering serious harm. The maximum penalty applicable was $400,000, but the respondent was fined $20,000. The Court found the fine imposed was manifestly inadequate and unreasonable or plainly unjust, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence set aside, with the respondent to be resentenced.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.