On 16 March 2022, a company was sentenced in the Cleveland Magistrates Court for 19 breaches of the Electrical Safety Act 2002, having performed electrical work without holding an electrical contractor licence. His Honour Magistrate Sarra fined the company $76,000. No conviction was recorded.

The offending occurred over a period of approximately 18 months between December 2018 and May 2020, at 16 locations across Southeast Queensland. The company advertised its electrical services to members of the public online and in at least one local magazine. At the time the company did not hold and had never held a contractor licence authorising it to conduct a business, including contracting for the performance of electrical work, in Queensland. On 14 November 2018, an improvement notice had been issued to the company by an Inspector from the Electrical Safety Office (ESO) which directed the company not to conduct a business or undertaking that included the performance of electrical work without holding a contractor licence. The offending was committed in disobedience of that notice.

On 27 May 2020 another improvement notice was issued to the company by an Inspector from the ESO, containing the same direction. On 17 August 2020, the company was ordered by Magistrate Turner in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to comply with the improvement notice of 14 November 2018.

The company otherwise had no prior convictions.

On 3 September 2021, the company was granted an electrical contractor’s licence. From that date, the company was licensed to contract for the performance of electrical work in Queensland.

In sentencing, Magistrate Sarra noted that the offending formed part of a protracted course of conduct, whereby the defendant company represented to members of community that it could conduct a business which it was not in fact licensed to conduct. His Honour identified the significance of general deterrence to the appropriate exercise of the sentencing discretion. It was identified that there was less of a need for specific deterrence of the defendant company, given the defendant company had been issued with an electrical contractor’s licence since the time of the offending.

In determining the appropriate penalty, his Honour acknowledged the financial circumstances of the company were strained, and that the company was effectively a “one man band” whereby the company’s sole director, who had also been charged individually with offences, would likely bear the consequence of any penalty imposed. A total fine of $76,000 was imposed, reflecting a notional penalty of $4,000 per offence.

While his Honour noted the nature of the offending may have warranted the recording of a conviction, in ultimately determining not to record a conviction, his Honour had regard to the company’s lack of prior convictions and cooperation with the investigation, as well as the adverse impact the recording of a conviction would have on the company’s ability to pay the fine imposed.

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