2026 WAIRC 00875
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA


CITATION
:
2026 WAIRC 00875



CORAM
:
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE D. SCADDAN



HEARD
:
WEDNESDAY, 5 AUGUST 2026



DELIVERED
:
WEDNESDAY, 5 AUGUST 2026



FILE NO.
:
CP 3 OF 2026



BETWEEN
:
DEPARTMENT OF THE REGISTRAR, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION


PROSECUTOR





AND





SINAMON PTY LTD (ACN 649 108 556)


OFFENDER

CatchWords : INDUSTRIAL LAW – Offence under section 33A(5)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 – Publishing of offensive posts on social media about the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission – Principles of personal and general deterrence – Penalty imposed
Legislation : Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)
Result : Conviction entered; penalties imposed
Representation:
Claimant : Mr A. Gibson (of counsel)
Respondent : No appearance



SENTENCING REMARKS
Given extemporaneously at the conclusion of the hearing, extracted from the transcript of proceedings and edited by her Honour.
1 The offence arises from the publishing of two Instagram posts on an Instagram account that is identified with and held by the accused company, Sinamon Pty Ltd. The statements that form the basis of the offence include that Chief Commissioner Stephen Kenner of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) is a ‘corrupt racist liar’, and secondly, that he is ‘[n]othing but a lying puppet, the Pinocchio of Perth’.
2 There was a second post that is attributable again to the accused company. I note both posts are dated 8 October 2025, but the second post is:
Indeed, they are horrible people, evidently racist and corrupted. They have been bullying my business for the past five years. I hope to expose them and make them an example for the public.
3 Notably, in terms relevant for sentencing, the Industrial Magistrates Court (the Court) needs to consider the overall seriousness of the offence. The maximum penalty for a person is $10,000. This is subject to the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) multiplier of five, Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 40(5).
so the maximum penalty is $50,000 for a corporation. That does give an indication of the seriousness of the offence as viewed by Parliament.
4 In terms of factors that are mitigating, it is difficult to identify any mitigating factors beyond what I can only assume is that the corporation has not been subject to prosecutions of this type in the past.
5 In terms of aggravating factors, I am informed that there are principally two aggravating factors. Firstly, there is a public reach with the posts where the accused company has about 26,000 followers.
6 But, irrespective of whether it has followers or not, one assumes that it is publicly available information, and could be viewed by any member of the public.
7 And the other is the duration from 8 October 2025 to at least up until 5 August 2026. That is, for approximately some 10 months.
8 The posts have remained on the accused company’s Instagram account, attributable to the accused, and members of the Commission have requested that those posts be removed on at least three occasions before commencing the prosecution.
9 It cannot be said that the accused company has not had an opportunity to remove the posts having been informed on more than one occasion to do so. I reasonably infer it is likely that in being requested to do so, the accused company was informed that it could be subject to a prosecution of this type.
10 In terms of the offence itself, it is using words in writing or spoken with the intention of damaging public confidence in the Commission or a Commissioner contrary to section 33A(5)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA).
11 The nature of the words used seek to impugn an individual who sits as a Commissioner within the Commission. It does so by using strong language in the context of that person’s role within the Commission. Further, the second post indicates that the accused company is prepared to continue to use this platform or an analogous platform to continue to damage either the individual or more broadly the Commission’s reputation by use of the words:
I hope to expose them and make them an example to the public.
12 This, in my view, indicates an intention of what the accused company, or the mind behind the accused company, is seeking to do.
13 It seeks to enact its own type of justice by undermining the important work carried out by the Commission – for those who may have little experience and have an axe to grind. It does not demonstrate a view of the world, rather, it is just a fairly harsh and pointed remark towards the Commission generally. With these types of commentaries, there ought to be, if not personal, then certainly general deterrence in preventing people from undermining the administration of justice in this way.
14 I also note that the comments made on the Instagram post are personal to an individual – they name that individual – and obviously have the reputational damage not only to the individual per se but to the Commission more broadly.
15 There is also a further need for personal deterrence. The accused company has been requested on at least three occasions to remove the post and they have not done so. One can only assume that they do not consider that there is any basis upon which it can meaningfully be removed.
16 That brings into play the fact that there needs to be a penalty that reflects not just the seriousness of the offence, but also brings home to the accused company, the implications of what they are saying. This penalty also needs to deter others from engaging in this type of behaviour.
17 I accept the characterisation as being low to moderate and that in the absence of any other mitigating factors beyond that there has been no other prosecutions that have been brought to the Court’s attention, I intend to a impose a fine of $7,000 and award the prosecution costs in the sum of $625.




D. SCADDAN
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE