District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v N Moit & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWDC 205 Hearing dates: 17 May 2023 Date of orders: 16 June 2023 Decision date: 16 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Strathdee DCJ Decision: (1) The defendant is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine for the offence is $100,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Accordingly, I order the defendant to pay a fine of $75,000.00.
(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – risk of death or serious injury
SENTENCE – objective seriousness – mitigating factors – aggravating factors – plea of guilty – appropriate discount for the utility of the plea – general deterrence – specific deterrence – remorse and contrition
COSTS – prosecutor’s costs
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bulga Underground Operations v Nash (2016) 93 NSWLR 338
Capral Aluminium Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 49 NSWLR 610
Fisher v Samaras Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 82 IR 384
Lawrenson Diecasting Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (1999) 90 IR 464
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Morrison v Powercoal Pty Ltd (No. 3) (2005) 147 IR 117
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96
Orbit Drilling v The Queen (2012) 35 VR 399
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
SafeWork NSW v Edstein Creative Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 117
SafeWork NSW v Grandcity Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWDC 398
SafeWork NSW v HCM Building Pty Ltd [2019] NSWDC 632
Veen v R (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Profab Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 700
WorkCover Authority (NSW) v Sarjame Storage Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 151
Texts Cited: Australian Standard AS/NZS Selection, use and maintenance of respiratory protective equipment 1715:2009
Respirable Crystalline Silica and Occupational Health Issues
The Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances Code of Practice
Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants
Category: Principal judgment Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
N Moit & Sons (NSW) Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr A Mykkeltvedt (for the Prosecutor)
Mr B Rauf (for the Defendant)
Department of Customer Service (for the Prosecutor)
Source Legal (for the Defendant)
File Number(s): 2022/229597 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
Between 28…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SafeWork NSW v N Moit & Sons (NSW) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 205
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the objective seriousness of the offence, mitigating and aggravating factors, and the defendant's plea of guilty. The objective seriousness was evaluated based on the potential harm, the degree of culpability, and the need for deterrence. The court noted that the company had shown remorse and contrition, which were mitigating factors. However, the potential for serious injury and the failure to prevent such incidents were aggravating factors. The company's plea of guilty resulted in a 25% discount on the fine. The court ordered a fine of $75,000, reduced from $100,000 due to the plea discount. Additionally, the company was required to pay 50% of the fine to the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.
In conclusion, the court found the company guilty and imposed a fine of $75,000, with additional payments to the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s costs. The sentence aimed to balance the need for general and specific deterrence with the mitigating factor of the company's guilty plea and expressed remorse.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The defendant is convicted.
(2) The appropriate fine for the offence is $100,000.00 and that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty.
(3) Accordingly, I order the defendant to pay a fine of $75,000.00.
(4) Pursuant to s 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW), 50% of the fine imposed is to be paid to the prosecutor.
(5) Pursuant to s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
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.