Safework NSW v Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd (No. 2)
Case
•
[2020] NSWDC 420
•07 August 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Safework NSW v Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 420
[2020] NSWDC 420
07 August 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Safework NSW prosecuted Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd in relation to the death of an apprentice roofer who fell through a polycarbonate skylight at a worksite. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The legal issues involved the duty of care owed by the company under the work health and safety legislation, specifically in relation to the risk of death or serious injury, and the appropriate penalty for the breach of that duty. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the impact on the victim's family. The company pleaded guilty to the charges.
The court found that the death of the apprentice was a grave consequence of the company's failure to ensure that the safety harnesses of the workers were properly connected to a static line. The court considered the mitigating factors, such as the plea of guilty, but also noted the significant aggravating factors, including the severity of the incident and the lack of compliance with safety regulations. The court determined that the penalty should reflect the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the company’s capacity to pay. It concluded that a fine of $400,000 was appropriate, with half of this amount payable to the prosecutor, and ordered the company to pay the prosecutor's costs.
The court emphasised the importance of adhering to safety standards to prevent such tragic incidents in the future. The penalty imposed was intended to highlight the serious nature of the offence and the responsibilities of employers under work health and safety laws. The court also acknowledged the impact on the victim's family by taking their Victim Impact Statements into account. The final orders included the conviction of the company, the imposition of a fine, the direction that a portion of the fine be paid to the prosecutor, and the requirement for the company to cover the prosecution’s costs.
The court found that the death of the apprentice was a grave consequence of the company's failure to ensure that the safety harnesses of the workers were properly connected to a static line. The court considered the mitigating factors, such as the plea of guilty, but also noted the significant aggravating factors, including the severity of the incident and the lack of compliance with safety regulations. The court determined that the penalty should reflect the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the company’s capacity to pay. It concluded that a fine of $400,000 was appropriate, with half of this amount payable to the prosecutor, and ordered the company to pay the prosecutor's costs.
The court emphasised the importance of adhering to safety standards to prevent such tragic incidents in the future. The penalty imposed was intended to highlight the serious nature of the offence and the responsibilities of employers under work health and safety laws. The court also acknowledged the impact on the victim's family by taking their Victim Impact Statements into account. The final orders included the conviction of the company, the imposition of a fine, the direction that a portion of the fine be paid to the prosecutor, and the requirement for the company to cover the prosecution’s costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Prosecution Costs
-
Criminal Liability
-
Plea of Guilty
-
Sentencing
-
Specific Deterrence
-
General Deterrence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Urban Field Group Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2024] NSWCCA 62
Cases Citing This Decision
14
SafeWork NSW v Bermagui Constructions Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWDC 604
SafeWork NSW v Metro Crane Services Pty Limited
[2023] NSWDC 144
SafeWork NSW v Evolve Roofing Pty Ltd
[2023] NSWDC 75
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
3
Baumer v R
[1988] HCA 67
Baumer v R
[1988] HCA 67
Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash
[2016] NSWCCA 37