SafeWork NSW v WY Constructions Pty Ltd - [2020] NSWDC 746 - NSWDC 2020 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWDC

SafeWork NSW v WY Constructions Pty Ltd

[2020] NSWDC 746

District Court of NSW|2020-12-04

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

District Court of NSW

Decision date

2020-12-04

Catchwords

(1988) 166 CLR 51 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
(2016) 93 NSWLR 338 BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71
(2011) 244 CLR 120 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited
Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

(1988) 166 CLR 51 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37(2016) 93 NSWLR 338 BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71(2011) 244 CLR 120 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty LimitedAttorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242

Judgment (29 paragraphs)

[1]

Background

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and this material is summarised below.
WY Constructions was a corporation involved in home building and renovation, including the demolition of existing structures.
WY Constructions was the builder listed on the Development Application for a residential construction site at 26 High Street, Strathfield NSW ("the Site"). The premises consisted of a single-storey brick cottage with a tiled roof and a triangular-shaped chimney.
WY Constructions had control of the Site.
Mr Wei Huang Wang was the co-owner of the residential property at the Site along with his mother, Mrs Shu Wang Zhuang. Mr Wang was also one of two listed directors of WY Constructions. Mr Qi Jiang is the other listed director of WY Constructions. Mr Jiang resided in China.
Mr Wang had a hands-on role within the company and was actively involved in the day to day management of WY Constructions.

[3]

Development Applications

Mr Wang and Mrs Zhuang applied for a Complying Development Certificate ("CDC") for the demolition of the premises on the Site and also for a CDC for the construction of a two-storey residential premises and a swimming pool.
On 28 November 2017 Mr Wang entered into an agreement with Archtech to carry out certification work ("the Certification Agreement") for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of the two-storey house and a swimming pool at the Site.
Under the Certification Agreement, Archtech was required to determine the applications for a CDC and Occupation Certificate and then undertake the functions of a PCA for the development.
On 28 November 2017 Mr Wang and Mrs Zhuang signed Archtech Approval Application Forms for CDCs and to nominate Archtech as PCA for: 1. The demolition of the Site with an estimated cost of $10,000. In this application WY Constructions was listed as the builder. 2. The construction of a two-storey house and swimming pool on the Site with an estimated cost of $500,000. No builder or owner builder was listed.
On 13 December 2017 Archtech issued a CDC for the demolition which included: (a) Conditions; (b) signed Archtech Building Application Approvals Application Forms and Building Schedule; (c) Demolition Plan by Sydney Registered Surveyors; (d) Specification for the Demolition Procedure; (e) Confirmation of Ownership; (f) Council Planning Certificate No. PC1022/1617/T - Section 149(2) Certificate.
A CDC for demolition must comply with the conditions prescribed in Schedule 9 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008. In particular it must be carried out in accordance with AS 2601 - 2001, The demolition of structures dated September 2001.
On 13 December 2017 Archtech issued a record of inspection which stated that Archtech was satisfied with the pre-CDC site inspection under cl 129B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (NSW).
On 13 December 2017 Archtech issued a letter to Mr Wang advising him that prior to commencing any work on the Site in relation to the CDC issued for the demolition he needed to complete the following: 1. A Notice of Commencement and Appointment of a PCA. 2. Notice to owners within 20 metres. 3. A receipt from Council for Council fees and any damage deposits or bonds.

[4]

The Demolition Work

Mr Qui provided Mr Wang with a sample "Demolition Procedures" document that he had obtained from a previous client who was developing a property at 1 Robinson Street, Sydney NSW. The sample document referred to building regulations applicable to the State of Victoria rather than NSW.
As part of the CDC application lodged with Strathfield Council WY Constructions lodged a document titled "Specifications for The Demolition Procedure for the Building Located at: XXXXX Street Strathfield NSW" ("Demolition Procedures"). This document was on WY Constructions' letterhead.
The Demolition Procedures did not provide a specific step-by-step process for the demolition of the house. Nor did the Demolition Procedures include a Safe Work Method Statement ("SWMS"). The Demolition Procedures did provide an outline of the precautions and procedures to be taken before and during demolition. Further, it required that the demolition should be done in accordance with the relevant standards and regulations.
The Demolition Procedures specifically stated: 1. That demolition will not commence until precautionary measures have been inspected and approved by a building surveyor. 2. Procedure and method of demolition will be adequate to prevent injury to persons and avoid damage to neighbouring property.
Mr Wang was not involved in the preparation of any demolition plan.
WY Constructions did not have a documented WHS management plan for the Site or for the project. WY Constructions had overall responsibility for work health and safety at the Site.
Demolition of the existing residential structure on the Site began on 11 December 2017.
Mr Yang and Mr Cao began work at the Site on the first day of demolition on 11 December 2017. Mr Wang provided Mr Yang and Mr Cao with transport to the Site each day.
Mr Yang stated that Mr Wang did not induct him on the Site, did not provide him with any training and made no inquiries about his experience, qualifications or training in demolition work.
Mr Yang's personal protective equipment ("PPE") consisted of work shoes and gloves. He did not have a hard hat. Mr Wang did not discuss safety requirements with him. Mr Wang was the only person wearing a hard hat.
Mr Yang stated that he did not hear any discussions between Mr Wang and Mrs Xie about her experience and her ability to undertake demolition work.
Mr Yang and Mr Cao were not aware of the Demolition Procedures document.
Mr Wang provided Mr Yang and Mr Cao with the tools and equipment they used for the demolition. These included two crow bars, two aluminium ladders, a hand-held hammer and a sledge hammer. The demolition was conducted by hand by Mr Yang and Mr Cao using the tools provided.
WY Constructions did not provide Mr Yang, Mr Cao or Mrs Xie with a documented demolition plan. The demolition methodology implemented was not documented as a demolition plan or a SWMS.
The majority of the demolition was completed by 15 December 2017. The only remaining work was the removal of brickwork on the exterior of the walls on the western, eastern and southern sides of the structure and the chimney.
The chimney was an internal triangular-shaped structure made of single brick course work approximately six metres in height and 1.2 metres wide.

[7]

Systems of Work prior to the Incident

Under cl 292 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW) ("the WHS Regulation"), the work being conducted at the Site was a "construction project". By cl 293 of the WHS Regulation WY Constructions was the principal contractor.
Pursuant to cl 309 of the WHS Regulation WY Constructions had an obligation to prepare a written WHS management plan for the workplace before work on the project commenced. WY Constructions did not have a WHS management plan for the construction phase of the work at the Site.
WY Constructions did not comply with the following work health and safety conditions of the CDC issued for the demolition: 1. Notification to SafeWork NSW of the commencement of the demolition pursuant to cl 142 of the WHS Regulation. 2. The specification of the Demolition Procedures lodged with the CDC including precautionary measures inspected and approved by a building surveyor.
WY Constructions did not comply with the conditions prescribed in Schedule 9 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 or in accordance with AS 2601-2001.
The WY Constructions demolition procedure stated that procedures and the method of demolition would be adequate to prevent injury to persons.
WY Constructions did not conduct a risk assessment or have a SWMS pursuant to cl 299 of the WHS Regulation that set out procedures for the demolition to take into account the associated risks and put systems in place to prevent injury to workers.
The system of work WY Constructions employed to demolish the chimney was an on-site discussion by its workers, who were not trained, experienced or qualified in demolition to determine the method of demolition.
WY Constructions did not develop, implement or enforce a demolition plan which included a plan for the demolition of the chimney, that considered the method of demolition and its sequencing, plant and equipment requirements, experience and training of workers, or exclusion zones for workers. WY Constructions did not undertake the demolition work using powered mobile plant such as an excavator, a loader, or a bulldozer.
In undertaking the demolition of the chimney, WY Constructions did not develop and implement an exclusion zone around the area of chimney that: 1. consisted of physical barriers that prevented falling objects from being ejected outside the work area; 2. prevented unauthorised personnel from entering the work area; 3. was of a sufficient size to encompass all areas where a falling object might reasonably be expected to land during the demolition process (1.5 metres x the height of the chimney).
In circumstances where the demolition of the chimney was to be undertaken manually WY Constructions did not develop, implement and enforce a SWMS that specified that: 1. the work was to be carried out from a safe work platform; 2. the work was to be carried out through the removal of successive courses of brickwork from the top; 3. the work was not to be undertaken by the induced collapse of the chimney; 4. an exclusion zone implemented around the area of chimney.
In circumstances where the demolition of the chimney was to be undertaken manually WY Constructions did not engage workers who were appropriately experienced and competent in demolition work.
WY Constructions did not provide adequate information, instruction and training to workers engaged in the demolition of the chimney. WY Constructions did not provide adequate supervision by an experienced and competent person of the workers engaged in the demolition of the chimney to ensure that they complied with a demolition plan and a SWMS.

[10]

SafeWork NSW Code of Practice: Demolition Work (dated September 2016)

Prior to and at the time of the incident, the Code of Practice: Demolition Work (September 2016, SafeWork NSW) was available and provided that: "1. Introduction: 1.1 What is demolition work? ...the demolition of an element of a structure that is load-bearing or otherwise related to the physical integrity of the structure is 'high risk construction work'. A safe work method statement (SWMS) must be prepared before the high risk construction work starts." …. Specific obligations for a person conducting a business or undertaking to manage the risks associated with demolition work…include: • Preparing a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for the proposed work, or ensuring a SWMS has already been prepared by another person, before any high risk construction work commences. … 2.1 Identifying the hazards The first step in the risk management process is to identify the hazards associated with demolition work (including): • Unplanned structure collapse … 3. Planning the demolition work Demolition work should be carefully planned before work starts so it can be carried out safely. Planning involves identifying hazards, assessing risks and determining appropriate control measures. … 3.4 Safe Work Method Statements If the demolition work is or involves high risk construction work, a person conducting a business or undertaking must prepare a SWMS before the work starts. The SWMS must: • identify the type of high risk construction work being done • specify the health and safety hazards and the risks arising from that work • describe how the risks will be controlled • describe how the control measures will be implemented, monitored and reviewed, and • be developed in consultation with workers and their representatives who are carrying out the high risk construction work. … 5.1 Manual demolition Manual demolition includes any technique where hand tools such as…sledge hammers…are used. Manual demolition has many of the hazards that are present in other major demolition activities including unexpected collapse… Areas where debris could fall should be barricade off and signs erected to prevent persons from entering before demolition starts. … 6.6 Independent chimneys and spires …it is common for chimneys to be demolished by hand or through induced collapse… Hand demolition should be carried out progressively from the top of the chimney and from safe working platforms. …"
Part 4.3 of the Code provided that in planning for exclusion zones the following should be taken into consideration: 1. Erecting secure impassable barricades with adequate signage and appropriate lock out procedures to prevent unauthorised pedestrian or vehicular access to the area. 2. Providing information to workers and other persons at the workplace advising them of the status of the exclusion zones. 3. Providing supervision so that no unauthorised person enters an exclusion zone.
The Code states that due to the height, it is common for chimneys to be demolished by hand or through induced collapse. As explained, the method being attempted to be used by WY Constructions at the time of the incident involved the method of induced collapse.
However, the Code notes that if the chimney is to be demolished manually then temporary supports may be required to ensure that premature collapse does not occur.
The Code also provided that due to their height, control measures that need to be considered when demolishing chimneys include: 1. Temporary work platforms. 2. Falling object protection. 3. Exclusion zones. 4. Dust control.
The Code notes that if the chimney is to be demolished manually through induced collapse it will require sufficient clear space, approximately 1.5 times the total height of the chimney, and sufficient width depending on the type of structure.

[21]

Objective Seriousness of the Offence

The proportionality principle requires that a sentence should neither exceed nor be less than the gravity of the crime having regard to the objective circumstances: Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 472, 485-6, 490-1 and 496. At common law, the term "objective circumstances" was used to describe the circumstances of the crime. The gravity of the offence was assessed by reference to its objective seriousness: R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [15].
The task requires the court to consider where in the range of conduct covered by the offence the conduct of the offender falls: Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51 at 57. This assessment will generally indicate the appropriate range of sentences available which will reflect the objective seriousness of the offence committed, and set the limits within which a sentence proportional to the criminality of the offender will lie: BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 at [70].
In Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27] the High Court said: "The objective seriousness of an offence is to be assessed without reference to matters personal to a particular offender or class of offenders. It is to be determined wholly by reference to the nature of the offending."
The sentencing judge should take into account not only the conduct which actually constitutes the crime, but also such of the surrounding circumstances as are directly related to that crime and are properly regarded as circumstances of aggravation or mitigation: R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 at [61].
The existence of a reasonably foreseeable risk to safety that is likely to result in serious injury or death is a factor relative to the gravity of the offence: Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 at [82]. The question of foreseeability of the risk is to be determined objectively.
The court must identify all the factors that are relevant to the sentence, discuss their significance and then make a value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case: Muldrock. This approach to sentencing, known as the "instinctive synthesis" approach, involves the making of a global judgment without any attempt to state precisely how any given factor has influenced the judgment.
The Court of Criminal Appeal has examined the sentencing process with regard to the Act in the matter of Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96. Justice Basten at [34], under the heading "Assessment of Risk" said: "The sentencing judge commenced his consideration with the proposition that 'greater culpability attaches to the failure to guard against an event the occurrence of which is probable rather than an event the occurrence of which is extremely unlikely'. However the truth of that proposition depends upon other considerations including (a) the potential consequences of the risk, which may be mild or catastrophic, (b) the availability of steps to lessen, minimise or remove the risk, and (c) whether such steps are complex and burdensome or only mildly inconvenient. Relative culpability depends on assessment of all those factors."
Further at [42] his Honour continued: "The culpability of the Respondent is not necessarily to be determined by the remoteness of the risk occurring, nor by a step‑by‑step assessment of the various elements. Culpability will turn upon an overall evaluation of various factors, which may pull in different directions. Culpability in this case is reasonably high because, even if the [event] which occurred might not be expected to occur often, the seriousness of the foreseeable resultant harm is extreme and the steps to be taken to avoid it, which were not even assessed, were straightforward and involved only minor inconvenience and little, if any, costs."
At [53] his Honour dealt with the proper approach to considering the objective seriousness of offences under the Act, saying: "It is important to note that the risk to be assessed is not the risk of the consequence, to the extent that a worker is in fact injured, but is the risk arising from the failure to take reasonably practicable steps to avoid the injury occurring. To discount the seriousness of the risk by reference to the unlikelihood of injury resulting is apt to lead to error. The conduct in question is the failure to respond to a risk of injury, conduct which will be more serious, the more serious the potential injuries, whether or not they are likely to materialize. The objective seriousness of the conduct will also be affected by the ease with which mitigating steps could have been taken."
My findings about the defendant's level of culpability are based upon the following: 1. The risk of injury or death of a worker being crushed by a masonry chimney during demolition works in circumstances where there is a failure by the principal contractor to comply with relevant demolition procedures was obvious and foreseeable. 2. Being struck and crushed by a collapsed structure is a well-known and obvious risk in the demolition and construction industry. Relevant guidance materials specifically dealt with the risk. 3. The potential consequences of the risk were very serious injury or death. Mrs Xie lost her life. 4. There were several steps that were readily available, which could have been implemented to eliminate or minimise the risk at the time of the incident, including: 1. conducting a risk assessment in relation to the demolition work; 2. undertaking the work using a powered mobile plant operated by a competent operator; 3. developing and implementing both an appropriate demolition plan and a SWMS dealing with the demolition of the chimney; 4. implementing an exclusion zone around the chimney area; 5. ensuring that workers were appropriately qualified, supervised by a competent person and provided with adequate training and PPE. 1. These measures were not complex, costly or burdensome. 2. Mrs Xie was on her first day on the Site at the time of the incident and was completely unqualified for demolition work. She was a very vulnerable worker. Mrs Xie died from the severe injuries sustained during the demolition work. 3. Mr Wang had no appreciation of the precautions which were necessary during the demolition. He had to run for his life to escape being crushed. His ignorance shows that WY Constructions made no attempt whatsoever to ascertain or carry out its obligations under the Act. 4. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $1,500,000, which reflects the legislature's view of the seriousness of the offence.
I find that the level of culpability of WY Constructions is in the high end of the mid range.

[25]

Capacity to Pay a Fine

I am required to have regard to s 6 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) before imposing a fine. Where an offender seeks to have a fine reduced on the basis of a limited capacity to pay, it bears the evidentiary onus of convincing the court that it should exercise its discretion to limit the amount of the fine. The offender's capacity to pay is relevant but not decisive: Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178 at [16]. A substantial fine may still be warranted as a result of the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
In Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 at [79] the Court of Criminal Appeal said: "First, and more generally, questions of specific deterrence should take into account the size and scope of the operations of the defendant; a fine which may be crippling to a small business may have virtually no impact on the financial operations of a large corporation. The maximum penalty for the offence is undoubtedly set having regard to such a factor. Secondly, the Court is required to have regard to 'the means' of the defendant, pursuant to s 6 of the Fines Act 1996."
There were several financial statements and documents annexed to Mr Wang's affidavit directly relevant to the present capacity to pay a fine. In his affidavit, Mr Wang explained that WY Constructions is a small company with few assets. The Strathfield property owned by Mr Wang and Mrs Zhuang was sold by them on 22 November 2019 for $4.1 million. The initial purchase price on 19 August 2017 was $2.2 million with $100,000 stamp duty, $1.2 million spent on total construction costs, and approximately $350,000 in interest charges over two years. The overall profit on the Strathfield property ultimately came to approximately $250,000.
A residential property at Campsie which is still owned by WY Constructions was purchased for $1,490,000 in August 2014. A Development Consent for the property was obtained in November 2017. The Campsie property is subject to a mortgage to secure almost $972,000 as at 30 October 2020. The Campsie property is valued at $1,565,209 in financial statements for FY 16-17 FY 17-18, FY 18-19 and FY 19-20. There was no evidence provided to corroborate the book value of the Campsie property in the accounts. This court does not operate in a vacuum. It strains credulity that a property in an inner suburb of Sydney has only increased in value by $75,000 since it was purchased six years ago. Further, a Development Approval for conversion of the property into home units has been granted since the purchase.
Mr Wang stated that there is no income other than rent of about $770 per week that helps to meet the mortgage repayments and offset some other expenses. Mr Wang explained that the mortgage repayments, rates, taxes and related expenses will exceed the rental income this financial year as it has in past years. As at 30 October 2020, there was $10,300 cash held in a WY Constructions account.
Between the time of purchasing the Campsie property in August 2014 and the end of the 2020 financial year, Mr Wang has invested $1.5 million of his own funds into WY Constructions to cover the expenses, shortfalls and the balance of the purchase price of the Campsie property. Pages 18 to 20 of Mr Wang's affidavit list hundreds of thousands of dollars of development and construction expenses paid by Mr Wang personally for the Campsie property. In the normal course such expenditure, being in the nature of improvements to the Campsie property, should have increased its value.
Mr Wang expressed the view that it is unlikely that WY Constructions will make a profit on the Campsie property, either by selling or developing it, for a number of years. Mr Wang believes that any penalty imposed would have to be paid by himself personally.
WY Constructions has presented no evidence about the true market value of the Campsie property. Even on what is a surprisingly low value in the company financial statements, there is equity in the Campsie property, over and above what is owed to a secured creditor, of almost $600,000. WY Constructions has not satisfied the court that it has a reduced ability to pay a fine.
However, the fine to be imposed will be moderated to take into account the small size and the cash flow position of WY Constructions.
I reject the submission made by counsel for the defendant (MFI 2 par 32(g)) that the court should "consider using the maximum penalty for an individual as a maximum starting point in assessing the appropriate penalty". As authority for that submission, counsel referred the court to Haynes v CI & D Manufacturing Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 60 IR 455 and WorkCover Authority of New South Wales v Lyndhurst Trading Co Pty Ltd (2000) 95 IR 462. Neither case supports the submission. In fact both confirm that even though a corporation is essentially a one-man band, it is to be sentenced having regard to the maximum penalty applicable to a corporation and not to the maximum (and much lower) penalty applicable to a natural person. See Haynes at 457-458 (per Bauer, Hungerford and Cullen JJ) and WorkCover Authority at 475 (per Walton J).
The Court of Criminal Appeal has very recently given further guidance concerning the appropriate fine in a case involving a death, where the offence is objectively quite serious, even when a defendant has several mitigating factors in its favour: Attorney General v Jamestrong Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCCA 319.

[28]

Penalty

My orders are: 1. WY Constructions Pty Ltd is convicted. 2. The appropriate fine is $400,000 but that will be reduced by 25% to reflect the plea of guilty. 3. Order WY Constructions Pty Ltd to pay a fine of $300,000. 4. Order pursuant to Section 122(2) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor. 5. Order WY Constructions Pty Ltd to pay the prosecutor's costs. 6. Order pursuant to s 238 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW): 1. Within six months of the date of these Orders, the defendant is to undertake and fund the development and production of a de-identified educative animated video (the project) by a suitable external provider (the provider) that documents, illustrates and highlights: 1. the incident in which Gui Ying Xie, Wei Huang Wang, Han Ming Cao were exposed to a risk of death or serious injury on 16 December 2017 (the material date); 2. the risks to which the persons were exposed on the material date; 3. the content, nature and operation of a suitable safe system of work that would have reduced the risk to which Gui Ying Xie, Wei Huang Wang, Han Ming Cao were exposed on the material date as far as is reasonably practicable; 4. the guidance material applicable to the demolition of brick structures as deemed appropriate by SafeWork NSW. 1. The management of the project and the provider will be undertaken by SafeWork NSW. 2. The defendant is to make periodic payments, when approved, within the terms specified in the agreement between SafeWork NSW and the provider. 3. The defendant is to agree that the copyright and all exhibiting and distribution rights in relation to the project, including the educative animated video, are to be held exclusively by SafeWork NSW. 4. The defendant is to notify the prosecutor, and the Registrar of the NSW District Court at the Downing Centre Sydney of any change of address for service. 5. Liberty to restore the matter before the Court if the defendant does not comply with this order.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

SafeWork NSW

Respondent/Defendant:

WY Constructions Pty Ltd

Legislation Cited (5)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000(NSW)

Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017(NSW)

Fines Act 1996(NSW)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011(NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999(NSW)

Cases Cited (20)

), ss 6, 122 State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (NSW), Sch 9 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 3, 19, 32, 235, 238 Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), cll 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,142, 292, 293, 299, 309 Cases Cited: Attorney General v Jamestrong Packaging Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCCA 319 Baumer v R [1988] HCA 67; (1988) 166 CLR 51 Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37; (2016) 93 NSWLR 338 BW v R [2011] NSWCCA 176 Capral Aluminium Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2000] NSWIRComm 71; (2000) 49 NSWLR 610 Haynes v CI & D Manufacturing Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 60 IR 455 Mahdi Jahandideh v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 178 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited; Attorney General for NSW v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Limited [2017] NSWCCA 96 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 Unity Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCCA 266 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 WorkCover Authority of New South Wales v Lyndhurst Trading Co Pty Ltd (2000) 95 IR 462 Texts Cited: Australian Standard 2601-2001: The demolition of structures, September 2001 SafeWork NSW, Code of Practice: Demolition Work, September 2016 Category: Sentence Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor) WY Constructions Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Magee (Prosecutor) M Shume (Defendant)

(1988) 166 CLR 51

(2016) 93 NSWLR 338

(2000) 49 NSWLR 610

(1995) 60 IR 455

(2011) 244 CLR 120

(2006) 66 NSWLR 566

(1988) 164 CLR 465

(2000) 95 IR 462