NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: SafeWork NSW v Auschem (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWDC 338 Hearing dates: 22 November 2017 Date of orders: 27 November 2017 Decision date: 27 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Judge D. Russell Decision: 1. The offender is convicted. 2. Order the offender to pay a fine of $60,000. 3. Order that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. 4. Order the offender to pay the prosecutor's costs agreed in the sum of $31,000. 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 – general deterrence – specific deterrence – appropriate penalty
SENTENCING PRINCIPLES – totality – remorse – contrition – appropriate penalty
COSTS – prosecution costs
OTHER – explosion and fire – decanting thinners – electrostatic ignition Legislation Cited: Work Health and Safety Act 2011 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Fines Act 1996 Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 Cases Cited: Veen v R (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 Baumer v R (1998) 166 CLR 51 BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96; 93 NSWLR 338 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash (2016) NSWCCA 37 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96; 93 NSWLR 338 Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178 Safework NSW v Omega International Coatings Pty Limited & Shetty [2016] NSWDC 11 Texts Cited: Australian Standard AS/NZS 1020: 1995 The Control of Undesirable Static Electricity SafeWork Australia Code of Practice: Managing Risks of Hazardous chemicals in the Workplace Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) Auschem (NSW) Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr M. Moir (Prosecutor) Mr M. Cahill (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate