On 20 March 2023, a roofing company was sentenced in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with their primary health and safety duties pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act. As a result of that failure, an employee of the company fell through a skylight and suffered serious injuries. The company was fined $30,000 at first instance. 

The Office of the Work Health Safety Prosecutor (OWHSP) appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate, having regard to the maximum penalty for the offence. The District Court found that the Magistrate made a number of errors when sentencing, but that it could not hold that the penalty imposed was inadequate in all of the circumstances.

The OWHSP subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, brought pursuant to s.118 of the District Court Act. In seeking leave to appeal from the District Court, the OWHSP contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The respondent contended that given the mitigating factors involved in the matter and fines imposed in cases in the Magistrates and District Courts, the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal determined that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that intervention was warranted. The Court considered that the level of the fine was significantly short of a proper exercise of sentencing discretion such that it was appropriate for the Court to interfere with the fine imposed.

The Court considered that even if the fine of $30,000 may have been derived from the Magistrate and District Court cases to which the District Court Judge was referred, that itself supported the appropriateness of intervention. The Court stated that it must ensure that future decisions do not continue to perpetuate low sentences which do not properly reflect the relevant sentencing considerations.

The Court noted that while there was no one single penalty that may be imposed, given the seriousness and potential consequences of the breach of a category 2 offence reflected by the maximum penalty, the penalty imposed fell well short of a fine that was commensurate with the nature of a category 2 offence.

The Court considered that the appropriate sentence, even taking account of the mitigating features, could warrant a fine in excess of $75,000. However, in circumstances where it was a prosecutor’s appeal, and where the prosecution did not seek a fine above $75,000 at first instance, the fine, albeit at the lower end of permissible sentences, was $75,000.

OWHSP contact: enquiries@owhsp.qld.gov.au