On 18 November 2024, a responsible agency for The State of Queensland, engaged in public administration and safety, was sentenced in the Caboolture Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty.

The agency engages workers in what are at times inherently dangerous activities with the important goal of protecting the community.

The case followed an incident that occurred to a worker employed by the responsible agency. They commenced employment around January 2011. One of the activities workers may be required to engage in as part of their employment is the placement of a tyre deflation device (“TDD”) across a roadway in order to safely conclude vehicle pursuits or to immobilise a vehicle. In doing so, workers are required to position themselves close to the expected path of the target vehicle, which is often travelling at high speed. It is a plainly hazardous activity which poses a high risk of injury, including fatal injury.

By section 19(1) of the WHS Act, the agency owed a primary duty of care to its workers to ensure their health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable. It was therefore obliged to ensure workers received adequate training in the deployment of TDDs.

The agency failed to comply with this duty. That failure exposed the worker involved in the incident to a risk of death or serious injury. On 26 June 2021, the worker died in the course of deploying a TDD.

On that date, the worker and their partner attended a location on the Bruce Highway in Burpengary, in response to reports that a stolen vehicle was travelling northbound. They parked their marked vehicle in preparation to deploy the TDD. They were provided generic approval to do so. The worker deployed the TDD and, while the worker was retreating off the road, the worker was struck by the stolen car, which was travelling at approximately 150km/hr. The worker, tragically, suffered fatal injuries as a result of the collision.

In their 10 years of employment, the worker completed only around five hours of training in the use of TDDs. That training was primarily theoretical, and lacked the cognitive demands of a ‘real-world’ context, thereby not adequately preparing workers for a dynamic operational situation. By the time of their death, the inadequacies in relation to their TDD training had existed for almost 10 years. The inadequacies persisted despite the defendant being notified of multiple incidents of TDD-related injuries during that time.

The prosecution submitted that the offending was very serious, being ‘high range’ offending for a charge of this kind, and that the culpability of the defendant was high. Training regimes and procedures were matters entirely within the defendant’s control, and its blameworthiness was aggravated by its knowledge of the risk and its failure to manage it over such a protracted period, and that a fatality resulted.

The defendant expressed its profound regret at the death of the worker but argued that the focus of the prosecution was on inadequate, not absent, training, and that some training had been completed. It also outlined the many steps taken since to improve training.

In sentencing, Magistrate Blanch remarked that the object of the WHS Act was to protect workers, and that workers should be given the highest level of protection. His Honour noted that the WHS Act binds all persons including the State, and referred to the maximum penalty, that an early plea of guilty had been entered, and the purpose of sentencing, being to punish an offender in a way that is just in all the circumstances. His Honour found that the primary purpose for sentence in this matter was deterrence, both general and specific, and referred to the prior incidents putting the defendant on notice as to the risk. His Honour held that it was incumbent on the defendant to provide adequate training to minimise the risk so far as reasonably practicable, and that the offence had occurred over a protracted period, and rejected a submission by defence that general deterrence does not loom large as the target vehicle was stolen and driven by offenders who were subsequently charged with murder. His Honour had regard to the cases to which both parties had referred, and, after taking all matters into consideration, convicted and fined the defendant $425,000. No conviction was recorded.

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