Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW

Unity Pty Limited and SafeWork NSW were involved in a legal dispute that was brought before the court. The case involved allegations that the defendants failed to ensure the health and safety of workers by exposing an individual to a risk of death or serious injury. The defendants were convicted under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) and subsequently appealed their conviction. The key legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were convicted of an offence other than the one particularised, whether the measures to ensure health and safety proposed by the prosecutor were reasonably practicable, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in making a finding of low objective seriousness and whether the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the injury suffered by the worker as an aggravating factor. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of whether the defendants' injuries should be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, given that these injuries would not have occurred if the defendants had taken the necessary measures.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in making a finding of low objective seriousness, as the risk pleaded did not manifest in the injuries suffered by the worker. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in failing to take the worker's injury into account as an aggravating factor because the injury was not a manifestation of the risk pleaded. Furthermore, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. In terms of the prosecution's appeal, the court found that the delay in lodging the appeal did not engage the court's discretion not to intervene, as the internal bureaucratic processes were sufficient justification. The court also held that the defendants' status as corporate entities did not preclude the appeal from being considered. Finally, the court found that the defendants were not remorseful in a manner that would constitute a mitigating factor under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).