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.
Details

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


Cases Citing This Decision

14

Cases Cited

15

Statutory Material Cited

3

Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67
Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67