Our compliance and enforcement activities may lead to prosecutions being filed in the South Australian Employment Tribunal and the Magistrates Court.

A prosecution may start either by our own initiative or following our consideration of a request from a person under Section 231(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

Prosecutors must prove the relevant elements of the offence and in the case of a Category 1 offence, that the conduct was reckless and without reasonable excuse.

Recent convictions

  • J.M.A Engineering Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v J.M.A Engineering Pty Ltd

    J.M.A Engineering Pty Ltd pleaded guilty in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In March 2019 a worker suffered crush injuries to their hand when it became caught in a de-coiler machine.

    J.M.A Engineering Pty Ltd exposed workers to a risk of serious injury by failing to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable:

    • a safe system of work for the task by not completing an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment process specific to the use of the de-coiler roller (including the application of protective layers to the roll)
    • a safe working environment by not adequately guarding the rollers during the operation of the de-coiler roller and
    • workers maintained a safe distance from the pinch point of the de-coiler machine.

    The SAET convicted J.M.A Engineering Pty Ltd and imposed a fine of $66,000 (after discount for early guilty plea) plus legal fees.

    9 September 2021


    City Demolitions and Earthmoving Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v City Demolitions and Earthmoving Pty Ltd

    City Demolitions and Earthmoving Pty Ltd pleaded guilty in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In March 2019 a worker suffered serious injuries when struck by a falling ramp of a low loader trailer while performing work inside the drop zone of its 230kg ramps. The ramps suddenly fell due to a failure of the hydraulic ram system, after their safety chain restraint system had been loosened so that the worker could open a storage box located between the ramps.

    The worker suffered severe traumatic injuries including fractures to his spine, pelvis, ankles, legs and ribs.

    City Demolitions and Earthmoving was charged with one work place safety offence of failing to provide, so far as was reasonably practicable, safe plant and a safe system of work, thereby exposing him to a risk of death.

    The SAET convicted City Demolitions and Earthmoving Pty Ltd and imposed a fine of $133,000 (after discount for early guilty plea) plus legal fees.

    30 July 2021


    Matt's Carpentry Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Matt's Carpentry Pty Ltd and Matthew Pincin

    Matt’s Carpentry Pty Ltd and Matthew Pincin pleaded guilty in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In December 2018 an apprentice carpenter fell from a height over three metres onto a concrete surface from a first floor of a residential building.

    The worker was undertaking wood framing on the first floor of a residential building. The worker was walking backwards unrolling some building material and fell through an unprotected and uncovered void, where a stairwell was to be installed.

    The injured worker was hospitalised with spinal injuries requiring surgery and a fracture of the pelvis.

    Matt’s Carpentry Pty Ltd was charged with failing to:

    • provide and maintain a safe working environment
    • ensure a safe system of work for the task undertaken
    • perform an adequate risk assessment and identify the hazard of working near an unguarded void
    • ensure appropriate control measures were in place to eliminate or reduce the risk of fall.

    Matthew Pincin, as the director and supervisor, was charged for failing to:

    • ensure appropriate hazard and risk assessment processes were in place for the task to be undertaken.

    Both the company and director's failures exposed the worker to a risk of serious injury or death.

    The SAET convicted Matt’s Carpentry Pty Ltd and imposed a fine of $90,000 (after discount for early guilty plea) plus legal fees.

    Matthew Pincin was convicted and imposed a fine of $21,000 (after discount for early guilty plea) plus legal fees.

    23 July 2021


    Woolworths Group Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Woolworths Group Limited

    Woolworths Group pleaded guilty in the South Australia Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In 2018 a supermarket worker was moving a two metre high bakery trolley which had been loaded with bread products from the bakery of the supermarket. While manoeuvring the trolley a wheel or wheels of the trolley jammed, causing the trolley to fall on to the worker. The worker sustained multiple injuries including a fractured back. The worker required surgery and spent 6 months off work.

    Following the incident it was found that the solid tyres on all four wheels of the trolley had signs of deterioration. All of the tyre treads had separated from the rim of the wheel. The movement of the trolley was compromised by the separation of the tyres from the rim of the wheels, and by a loose strip of rubber hanging off the side of the tread. Moreover, the rim had cut into the tread and thus widened it, with the prospect that the rim may have wedged itself between the wheel rim and the side plate, stopping rotation of the wheel. The wheels and tyres of the trolley were found to be old, degraded, and poorly maintained. The fully loaded trolley was also found to be top heavy and could easily topple if the wheels became jammed.

    Woolworths had inspection and maintenance systems in place for other equipment but here was no system of inspection and maintenance in relation to the bakery trolleys.

    The defendant breached its duty by failing to provide any system for the inspection and maintenance of the bakery trolleys.

    The SAET convicted Woolworths and imposed a fine of $72,000 (after 40% discount for early guilty plea) plus legal fees.

    17 March 2021


    Gilmac Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Gilmac Pty Ltd

    Gilmac Pty Ltd pleaded guilty in the South Australia Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of their duties under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In 2017 a worker was standing on the mezzanine platform of a hay press attempting to clear residue from the press with what is referred to as a ‘metal bale’. The metal bale, a section of I-beam with metal plates welded on the ends, measured 1192mm x 152mm x 152mm and weighed approximately 31.5 kg, was being manoeuvred into position on the press’s weigh table when it became stuck.

    The worker attempted to dislodge the metal bale from behind the platform’s guardrail and fell approximately 3 metres onto the weigh table below. The weight of the worker and the metal bale activated the operation of the hay press, resulting in the amputation of both the worker’s legs below the knees.

    The hay press had a lock out mechanism whereby a padlock could be placed to isolate the hay press from its energy source. Once locked out, the automation of the hay press was prevented. The hay press had not been isolated as the worker was moving the metal bale in preparation for clearing the residue at a later time.

    The hay processing machine involved has not been used since the incident. A new machine is being built, and has been designed with health and safety considerations in mind.

    The defendant breached its duty because:

    • it failed to undertake a risk assessment of the plant as required by regulation 34 of the Work health and Safety Regulations 2012
    • it failed, so far as was reasonably practicable, to equip the plant with suitable interlocked guarding to minimise the risk of a worker being exposed to hazardous activation of the transfer pusher platen followed by the press base toggle by slipping onto the weigh table area
    • it failed, so far as was reasonably practicable, to minimise the risk that a worker who was required to undertake tasks that necessitated the climbing over or under the handrail above the weigh table area, might slip and cause hazardous motion of the actuators in the weigh table area by the provision and maintenance of safe operating procedures requiring that the unguarded plant be locked out prior to accessing the area
    • it failed to provide, so far as was reasonably practicable, a safe means of accessing the weigh table for the purpose of preparing to clear and clearing the Index with a metal bale by, for example, providing stairs and a guarded platform.

    The SAET convicted Gilmac and imposed a fine of $245,000 (after 30% discount for early guilty plea), and legal fees.

    5 March 2021


    White Crane and Rigging Service

    Martyn Campbell v White Family Property Investments Pty Ltd (trading as White Crane and Rigging Service) and Ashley White

    White Family Property Investments Pty Ltd trading as White Crane and Rigging Service and Ashley White both pleaded guilty in the South Australia Employment Tribunal (SAET) for breaches of their duties under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In December 2017, White Crane and Rigging Service were engaged to remove pine trees at residential premises.

    Ashley White, as an employee of the business, was operating the 130 tonne crane that had been supplied by another business. While carrying out the task, the crane cables became entangled. Mr White lowered the boom and overrode the safety switch, resulting in the crane toppling over and damaging beyond repair two motor vehicles parked nearby and narrowly missing one of the vehicle's owners. The damage to the vehicles resulted in significant financial loss to the owners' businesses.

    White Crane and Rigging Service was charged for failing to:

    • adequately plan for the job including providing a risk assessment to the crane operator
    • ensure the operator completed an adequate job safety analysis prior to undertaking the task including assessing the site for hazards and applying control measures.

    Ashley White as the operator of the crane was charged for breaching his health and safety duty by:

    • overloading the crane causing it to tip and creating a risk of serious injury or death to others
    • failing to accurately measure and record data in the crane’s computer system
    • failing to ensure that the lift was in the safe working limits of the crane
    • overriding the crane’s safety function.

    Convictions against both defendants were recorded.

    Pecuniary penalties were not issued with the SAET noting the financial circumstances of the defendants. Had penalties been applied they would have resulted in a $150,000 fine to the company and a $15,000 fine to the crane operator.

    24 February 2021


    Zerella Holdings

    Martyn Campbell v Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd

    Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). It breached its s19 duty to ensure the safety of workers whilst at work thereby exposing them to the risk of serious injury or death.

    In October 2017, a male worker was injured whilst attempting to clean a sump pump which had been raised from a potato wash pit. As he leant over his clothing was caught in an unguarded rotating agitator shaft, dragging him into the pit and spinning him around the agitator shaft until all of the clothing on his upper body had been torn off. He was then flung onto a platform within the pit, thereby avoiding falling into the water.

    The worker sustained injuries including fractures, lacerations and friction burns resulting in ongoing impairment.

    Zerella breached their health and safety duty because it failed to:

    • ensure provision and maintenance of safe plant including guards around the rotating PTO shaft
    • ensure there was a safe system of work to minimise the risk of injury
    • prepare a Safe Operating Procedure that related to the plant and tasks
    • provide adequate supervision when undertaking the task
    • adequately train workers to undertake the task safely.

    Zerella has subsequently reviewed its safety procedures and implemented extensive safety measures and improved staffing.

    The South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) convicted Zerella and imposed a fine of $210,000 (after 30% discount for early guilty plea), and legal fees.

    10 February 2021


    Lightforce Asset & Civil Allied Technical Construction

    Martyn Campbell v Lightforce Asset Pty Ltd and Civil and Allied Technical Construction Pty Ltd

    Lightforce Asset Pty Ltd and Civil and Allied Technical Construction Pty Ltd both pleaded guilty to a breach of their health and safety duty under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) for exposing a person to risk of serious injury or death.

    In February 2018, a male worker was driving long piers into the ground using a hydraulic pile driver when it jammed. As the worker investigated to fix the machine, the device freed, crushing him to death.

    Lightforce breached their health and safety duty because it failed to:

    • ensure a hazard identification and risk assessment was completed to identify risk or injury
    • ensure the worker operated within the guidelines of Safe Work Method Statements
    • maintain the pile driver as is reasonably practicable and fit for purpose.

    Civil and Allied Technical Construction Pty Ltd breached their health and safety duty because it failed to:

    • use a safe system of work to minimise the risk of injury
    • complete a hazard analysis and risk assessment prior to undertaking the task
    • prepare a safe operating procedure that related to the plant and tasks.

    The South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) imposed convictions on both defendants.

    Lightforce Asset Pty Ltd was convicted by the South Australian Employment Tribunal and fined $300,000 (after 40% discount for early guilty plea).

    Civil and Allied Technical Construction Pty Ltd was convicted by the South Australian Employment Tribunal and fined $450,000 (after 40% discount for early guilty plea).

    21 January 2021

  • Minda Incorporated

    Martyn Campbell v Minda Incorporated

    Minda Incorporated pleaded guilty to a breach of its health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    In early 2018, a female employee of Minda was sexually assaulted by a client of Minda when she was visiting the premises at which that client lived. Minda knew of the existence of the risk of sexual assault.

    Minda was found to have failed to:

    • provide adequate supervision of the client
    • provide adequate information about the risk to the employee
    • inform the employee of the requirements visitors were to adhere to when attending the premises.

    The South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) imposed a conviction, a fine of $42,000 (reduced by 30% from $60,000 for the defendant’s early guilty plea) and ordered Minda to pay legal costs.

    16 December 2020


    H&T Cook Enterprises and Tiarne Cook

    Martyn Campbell v H&T Cook Enterprises and Tiarne Cook

    H&T Cook Enterprises pleaded guilty to a breach of its health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) and a conviction recorded. As the company has since sold the café and no longer has assets or income, no fine was imposed. Had the business continued to operate, a fine of $110,000 before application of the sentencing discount for an early guilty plea would have been imposed.

    Tiarne Cook pleaded guilty to a breach of her health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) and was fined $18,000 (after reduction of 40%) with no conviction recorded. The defendant was also directed to pay SafeWork SA's legal costs, court costs and the Victims of Crime Levy.

    On 15 August 2018 an employee of the defendants was in the process of refuelling the ethanol burner located in the café when it ignited into flame. The employee sustained burns to her face, hands, ears and neck.

    H&T Cook Enterprises failed to:

    • ensure the burner was refuelled in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions or otherwise in a safe manner
    • provide all workers with written instructions to refuel the burner in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions or otherwise in a safe manner
    • train all workers to refuel the burner with the burner mouth closed, with use of the manufacturer’s jerry can, and with use of the manufacturer’s dedicated refuelling point
    • adequately train workers to require the ethanol burner to cool for at least 30 minutes before refuelling
    • supervise the refuelling of the burner.

    These failures exposed individuals to a risk of serious injury.

    As the business operator, Tiarne Cook failed to:

    • exercise due diligence to ensure that H&T Cook Enterprises complied with its health and safety duty
    • train the employee to refuel the burner without ensuring that the employee knew it should be refuelled only when completely cool, when shut off, and by use of the specialised jerry can through the dedicated refuelling point.

    These failures exposed individuals to a risk of serious injury.

    11 December 2020

  • S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd

    Marie Boland v S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd

    S & AD Basheer Nominees Pty Ltd have been convicted and fined a total of $70,000 plus legal fees after a contractor was injured when he fell into an open and unguarded cellar.

    The defendant, who own and operate the Strathmore Hotel in Adelaide, failed to provide and maintain a safe working environment at the Hotel, and to provide adequate information and training to its employees.

    Prior to the incident, the defendant engaged Murray Pest and Weed Control to perform pest eradication and control maintenance services at the Strathmore Hotel.

    In August 2013, a Murray’s contractor was injured when he fell through the open trapdoors of a cellar in the Hotel’s gaming room. The worker sustained a spleen laceration and required immediate treatment in hospital.

    The defendant entered a guilty plea in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) in September 2015.

    The SAET imposed a fine of $100,000, which was reduced by 30% to $70,000 for the defendant’s early guilty plea, demonstration of remorse and cooperation with SafeWork SA. In addition, a victim of crime levy, court costs and prosecution costs were ordered.

    The SAET considered that the offending was a serious breach of the WHS Act and deterrence was an important consideration in determining penalty.

    10 December 2019


    Anthony Rosier

    Martyn Campbell v Anthony Rosier

    Anthony Rosier was convicted and fined a total of $8,100 after pleading guilty to a breach of S43(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) and regulation 487(1) Work Health Safety Regulations (SA). In addition, prosecution costs and a victim of crime levy were also ordered.

    In November 2017, Rosier removed about 94m2 of asbestos containing material from a domestic dwelling without the necessary licencing to do so. He also failed to ensure that appropriate signage alerting the public to the presence of asbestos was put in place to indicate that this work was being carried out.

    The defendant entered a guilty plea in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) in November 2019.

    On 15 November 2019, the SAET imposed a conviction and the above penalty. The SAET remarked that the penalty took into account the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's significant prior offending regarding asbestos, the defendant's early guilty plea and the defendant's financial circumstances.

    15 November 2019


    Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd

    Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $15,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s33 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012(SA).

    On 25 March 2017, an apprentice engaged at the defendant’s electrical business was exposed to a risk to his safety when supervisors squirted flammable liquid onto the apprentice and ignited it.

    The defendant had a duty to ensure, as far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers.

    In this case it failed to adequately train and supervise its site supervisors involved in the incident and it failed to ensure that it possessed and made known to all of its workers a documented bullying and harassment policy.

    The defendant was found guilty with the penalty given taking into account the defendant’s contrition, early plea and co-operation with the investigation, their acceptance of responsibility for its role in the incident and identifying the deficiency of bullying and harassment policies at the time and making considerable investment to ensure workers have an avenue to report bullying.

    13 November 2019


    Luke Chenoweth

    Martyn Campbell v Luke Chenoweth

    Luke Chenoweth was convicted and fined $21,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 25 March 2017 the defendant was a site supervisor employed by Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd and was carrying out electrical work at a site in Woodville.

    Luke Chenoweth squirted a flammable liquid onto the boot, pants and shirt of an apprentice and ignited the flammable liquid.

    The defendant took no immediate steps to extinguish the flames on the apprentice’s shirt and his conduct made it possible for the apprentice to be killed or to sustain serious injuries from burns to his body.

    The defendant was found to be reckless as to the risk of death or serious injury to the apprentice.

    29 August 2019


    TC Formwork

    Martyn Campbell v TC Formwork Pty Ltd

    TC Formwork was convicted and fined $120,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 6 December 2016 a worker at a Windsor Gardens site fell over an exposed edge of formwork from a height of 4.4 metres above the ground, fracturing his leg.

    Workers at the site were exposed to a risk of death or serious injury because no static line system or fall restraint system had been installed, and workers did not wear harnesses.

    21 August 2019


    Jeffrey Rowe

    Martyn Campbell v Jeffrey Rowe

    Jeffrey Rowe was convicted and fined $12,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s31 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 25 March 2017 the defendant was a site supervisor employed by Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd and was carrying out electrical work at a site in Woodville.

    Another employee of Tad-Mar squirted a flammable liquid onto the boot and shirt of an apprentice and ignited the flammable liquid. The defendant took no steps to stop the actions of that employee. Instead the defendant squirted more flammable liquid onto the shirt of the apprentice whilst the shirt was burning.

    The defendant failed to take steps to stop the unsafe behaviour of the employee towards the apprentice, took no immediate steps to extinguish the flames on the apprentice’s shirt and was reckless as to the risk of death or serious injury to the apprentice.

    31 May 2019


    The State of South Australia (In the Right of South Australia Police)

    Martyn Campbell v The State of South Australia (In the Right of South Australia Police)

    SAPOL was convicted and fined $390,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 4 October 2016 a cook was working alone at SAPOL’s Echunga training site. As part of her duties she entered a walk-in freezer to access food to be used in connection with training courses.

    Whilst she was inside the freezer door was blown shut and the emergency door release inside the freezer was not functioning properly. As a result the cook was trapped inside the freezer and succumbed to hypothermia.

    The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable, a safe work environment, safe plant at the site (being the freezer) as well as suitable and adequate information, training, instruction or supervision to the cook at the site.

    16 April 2019

  • Simec Zen Technologies (Power and Energy) Pty Ltd

    Martyn Campbell v Simec Zen Technologies (Power and Energy) Pty Ltd

    Zen Technologies were convicted and fined $114,000 (after reduction of 40%) after pleading guilty to a breach of s 19 and s32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA).

    On 31 March 2016 two workers attended the premises of Wohlers in Tanunda to measure energy consumption and make an assessment as to a suitable energy storage system with a view to Wohlers going off grid.

    While attaching power analyser test equipment to a live electricity board at the premises to record electrical consumption, an electrical arc occurred injuring a worker. One worker suffered burns to hands, arms and face while the second worker escaped injury.

    The defendant failed to have in place adequate hazard identification and risk assessment processes and adequate documented safe work procedures in relation to the use of a power analyser to measure electricity consumption.

    31 October 2018


    Pro-Pac Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd

    Pro-Pac Packaging (Aust) Pty Ltd were charged with breaches of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). On 1 June 2015 a worker sustained serious injuries to his lower leg when he was struck by a moving forklift driven by a co-worker.

    The defendant failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintenance of a safe system of work in relation to the task which minimised the risk of pedestrians coming into contact with a moving forklift in the area at the site where the task was performed.

    13 July 2018


    Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd

    Campbell v Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd

    Jarrad MacGillvary Pty Ltd and Callan MacGillvary Pty Ltd were convicted and fined $105,000 each after pleading guilty to a breach of s32 (as read with s19) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). Compensation totalling $50,000 (5 x $10,000) was ordered to be paid to the worker’s family. On 9 August 2016, a 17 year old carpentry apprentice was killed when a 13 metre section of propped timber framing fell over striking the worker in the head and chest causing fatal crush injuries.

    The defendants failed to ensure to that their workers used a system of work which minimised the risk of timber framework falling by:

    • requiring all props used as temporary bracing to be nail-fixed at the top of a stud or top plate of the wall frame; and
    • adequately secured at the base to the slab, the ground or some other immovable object.

    11 May 2018


    Boland V JT Johnson and Sons Pty Ltd

    JT Johnson and Sons Pty Ltd were found guilty at trial for breaches of section 19(1) of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986. The company was convicted and fined $225,000. On 9 October 2012, an employee was crushed in the door of an item of plant while accessing the machine to perform maintenance work.

    The defendant failed to provide and maintain, so far as was reasonably practicable:

    • plant in a safe condition, in that it failed to prevent or minimize the risk of injury arising from the right hand side door closing
    • a safe system of work in that it failed to develop and implement a safe operating procedure (or procedures) which specified the access and egress point and procedures to be followed in respect of maintenance to be carried out and prohibited the use of the right hand side door as a point of access to, or egress from the machine.

    15 March 2018


    Laszlo Bajtek

    Soulio v Laszlo Bajtek

    Laszlo Bajtek was convicted after pleading guilty to sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). The charges relate to a workplace incident which occurred on the 1 June 2015 when a worker was seriously injured by a moving forklift.

    The defendant failed to:

    • comply with his health and safety duty prescribed by s19 (1) of the Act because he failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision and maintenance of a safe system of work in relation to the task which minimised the risk [of] pedestrians coming into contact with a moving forklift in the area at the site where the task was performed, being an adequate traffic management system which prohibited the use of forklifts in the area where the task was performed
    • comply with his health and safety duty prescribed by s19(1) of the Act because he failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the provision of information, training and instruction or supervision that was necessary to protect the worker from risks to his health and safety arising from the performance of the task at the site.

    Given the defendants inability to pay, Magistrate Ardlie proceeded under the provisions of s13 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.

    The penalty imposed if the defendant was in a position to pay is $120,000 reduced by 20% to $96,000 for the guilty plea.

    2 March 2018

  • Exemptions

    Exemptions under the Act from prosecution for certain duty of care offences are:

    • volunteers (unless they failed to comply with a duty applicable to a worker or other person in the workplace)
    • unincorporated associations (however officers or members of an unincorporated association may be liable for a failure to comply with a duty)
    • Ministers of the Crown and an elected member of a local authority.