WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Moore) v E and T Bricklaying Pty Ltd

In the matter of WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Moore) versus E and T Bricklaying Pty Ltd, the defendants were convicted under sections 19(1)(a), 27 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for their roles in a workplace incident that resulted in serious injury. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The defendants were found guilty of failing to provide a safe work environment and other related breaches of work health and safety laws. The legal issues central to this case involved determining the appropriate sentencing for the defendants, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the foreseeability of the risk of injury, and the measures available to mitigate such risks. Additionally, the court considered the culpability of the defendants, their position and responsibility within the worksite, and the principles of general and specific deterrence in the sentencing process.

The court analysed the case by examining the principles outlined in sections 3A and 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court assessed the foreseeability of the risk of injury and the consequences of that risk materialising, as well as the availability of measures to avoid the risk. It was noted that there was no evidence of remorse or contrition from the defendants, and neither had prior convictions. The victim impact statement was also taken into consideration. The principle of parity was applied to ensure fairness in sentencing, and the court deliberated on whether general deterrence should play a role in sentencing, alongside specific deterrence aimed at preventing future offences by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that while the defendants held positions of responsibility, the lack of remorse and the absence of prior convictions were mitigating factors.

The court ordered that E and T Bricklaying Pty Ltd be fined the sum of $80,000, with a moiety to be paid to the prosecutor. Additionally, the individual defendant, Mr. Kose, was fined $10,000, also with a moiety payable to the prosecutor. The court also mandated that the defendants pay the prosecutor’s costs. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case.