Citation: [2026] NSWDC 99
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 17 April 2026
Judge(s): Scotting DCJ
Background
This decision concerns the sentencing of a corporate offender — a company that operated a skydiving school at an airport near Goulburn, NSW — and its sole director, following their conviction at trial on four offences under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act). The convictions related to the deaths of a skydiving instructor (a contract worker acting as "Tandem Master") and a tandem student during a jump on 27 June 2021. The findings of guilt had been handed down in an earlier verdict judgment: SafeWork NSW v Goulburn Flight Training Centre Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Ferrara [2026] NSWDC 59.
The fatal incident occurred when the student's loosely fitted harness became snagged on a fabricated step that had been attached to a Cessna 182 aircraft without the legally required authorisation from an accredited aircraft design engineer (an "engineering order"). The step, designed and installed by the skydiving school's Chief Instructor, contained a U-bracket with gaps and sharp angles that presented what the Court found was an obvious and dangerous snag hazard. After the two skydivers became trapped beneath the aircraft in a "hang-up," the pilot's attempts to free them — including leaving the controls to use a hook knife and making multiple low passes alongside a vehicle driving along the runway — were unsuccessful. The pair eventually fell from a height of approximately 100 metres when they came free. A reserve parachute was activated but did not deploy in time. Both men died from their injuries.
The prosecution was brought by SafeWork NSW. The company faced a maximum fine of $1,766,130 per offence, while the director faced a maximum of $353,430 per offence, each having been convicted on two counts — one relating to the duty owed to the instructor (a worker) and one to the student (another person). The offences arose from breaches of the company's primary duty under s 19 and the director's officer duty under s 27 of the Act.
Legal Issues
- Objective seriousness of the offences: What was the gravity of the safety breaches, having regard to the nature of the risks, the foreseeability of harm, and the consequences?
- Aggravating and mitigating factors under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: What factors increased or reduced the appropriate penalty?
- Deterrence: What weight should be given to general and specific deterrence in the work health and safety context?
- Remorse: Were the expressions of remorse by the director and company genuine, and what weight should they be given at sentencing?
- Capacity to pay a fine: What was the company's and the director's financial capacity to pay any fine imposed?
- Appropriate penalty: What fines (and any other orders) were warranted, having regard to the totality principle and the sentencing purposes under the Act?
- Prior good character and rehabilitation: What weight should be given to the absence of prior convictions and the steps taken after the incident?
Decision
The Court approached sentencing by first assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. Central to this assessment were two systemic failures: first, the failure to prevent the Cessna from being used for skydiving operations before an engineering order had been obtained for the fabricated step — a step that the Court found presented an "obvious and dangerous snag hazard" requiring no expert opinion to identify; and second, the absence of any system to inform skydiving instructors about changes to the Australian Parachute Federation's operational regulations, including the April 2021 amendment making pre-jump buddy checks mandatory. Had either control been in place, the incident may well have been averted. The loose harness that snagged on the step would likely have been identified by a buddy check, and the step itself should never have been in use without engineering approval. The consequences — the deaths of two people — placed the offending at a high level of objective seriousness.
In considering mitigating factors, the Court noted the offenders' expressions of remorse, including the director's affidavit expressing deep regret and an unqualified apology. The Court also took into account the practical steps taken after the incident: the company largely ceased skydiving operations (resuming only briefly to honour pre-sold vouchers), and in compliance with SafeWork NSW improvement notices, undertook a review and revision of its Safety Management System. The director had hosted a memorial event for the deceased and provided accommodation to the family of the instructor. Neither the company nor the director had prior convictions under work health and safety legislation. These were treated as relevant mitigating considerations, though the Court was careful to weigh them against the gravity of the offending.
On the question of capacity to pay, the judgment addressed the director's personal financial position and the company's ongoing (but reduced) operations — it had ceased its skydiving and flying school activities but continued to provide aircraft maintenance at the airport. The Court considered this relevant to calibrating the fine, consistent with the authorities on capacity to pay including Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37.
The Court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in work health and safety prosecutions, noting that penalties must send a clear message to others in the industry about the consequences of failing to manage foreseeable risks to the health and safety of workers and members of the public. The principles from Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 regarding consistency in sentencing and from R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412 regarding the assessment of remorse were applied. The Court also considered the totality principle in arriving at appropriate aggregate penalties across the four offences (two each for the company and the director).
Note: The judgment text provided was truncated and the specific quantum of the fines imposed is not contained in the extract available for this summary. The reasoning described above is drawn from the portions of the judgment that were available.
Orders Made
- The corporate offender was convicted on 10 April 2026 of two offences under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
- The director was convicted on 10 April 2026 of two offences under s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
- Fines were imposed for each offence. (The specific amounts are not available in the truncated text provided.)
Key Takeaways
-
The District Court found that the snag risk presented by the fabricated step was obvious and that no expert opinion was needed to identify it, meaning a PCBU or officer could not rely on the absence of a formal engineering assessment as a reason for inaction when a risk was self-evident.
-
A distinct and significant basis for liability arose from the absence of any system to inform skydiving instructors about mandatory changes to operational regulations, including the introduction of compulsory buddy checks. The Court treated this systemic communication failure as a separate breach from the step modification issue.
-
Under s 27 of the Act, the director's failure to follow up on whether an engineering order had been obtained, and to prevent the aircraft from being used without one, was central to his personal liability. A single direction to a subordinate, without follow-up or enforcement, was insufficient to discharge the officer's duty of due diligence, which requires active oversight rather than passive delegation.
-
Post-offence remedial steps (including cessation of operations, revised safety systems, and expressions of remorse) were given mitigating weight, but the District Court held that these factors did not overcome the high objective seriousness of offending that resulted in two deaths.
-
General deterrence remains a primary sentencing consideration in work health and safety prosecutions, and the Court held that fines must serve as a meaningful deterrent to others in the relevant industry, particularly where the offending involves foreseeable and preventable risks to life.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), ss 19, 27, 32
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases:
- Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
- Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
- Jahandideh v R [