On 1 October 2024, a cattle farming company was sentenced in the Townsville 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 defendant owned a telehandler along with a square hay fork attachment.  The defendant employed a worker (‘the Worker’), to care for cattle at the workplace. His role included accepting delivery of hay bales and unloading the hay bales using the telehandler with the fork attachment.

A company was engaged to deliver two loads of hay bales to the workplace.  The deceased was the owner and operator of that business. Each of the deliveries were for 53 hay bales, and each hay bale weighed approximately 418 kilograms. The deceased attended the workplace on 5 April 2022 for the first delivery. The Worker would use the telehandler to unload the hay bales (‘the work activity’).

The deceased again attended the workplace on 8 April 2022 with the second delivery.  There were no discussions between the Worker and the deceased as to how the hay bales were to be unloaded.  While the Worker unloaded the hay bales, the deceased moved to the rear of the trailer to roll up strapping.

After unloading some hay bales from the front of the trailer, the Worker observed that some hay bales were missing from the opposite side of the trailer.  He called out to the deceased and received no response. He then found the deceased on the opposite side of the trailer on his back on the ground with one hay bale on his chest and head.  The Worker used the telehandler to remove the hay bale from the deceased, who was found to be unconscious but breathing, and called for assistance.

The deceased was transported to hospital where he underwent two surgeries.  He remained in the ICU until May 2022 when he was transferred to the spinal injury unit.  He remained relatively stable until a rapid deterioration in his condition resulting in his death in February 2023.  It was opined that the deceased’s death was not a death which was likely to occur in the absence of his preceding injury and prolonged hospital admission.

In sentencing, Magistrate Fredericks took into account the defendant’s early plea of guilty, which demonstrated remorse.

Her Honour had regard to the guiding sentencing principles and objects of the act, as contained in the prosecutions written submissions.

Her Honour had regard to the submission made by both parties and considered in detail each of the cases referred to her. Her Honour noted that there was no defined penalty range.  Having regard to the cases placed before the court, her Honour considered the appropriate range in this matter to be $150,000-$250,000.

Her Honour had regard to the principles as adopted by Judge Fantin in Steward v Mac Plant Pty Ltd and Mac Farms Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 20. Applying the facts to these principles, her Honour considered that the risk arising was obvious, clearly identifiable and foreseeable, and that there were uncomplicated steps available to reduce the risk to an acceptable minimum, which could have been implemented at low cost with minor inconvenience. Her Honour considered that the objective seriousness of the defendant’s conduct to be in the mid to high range.

Her Honour had regard to the maximum penalty as well as the sentencing principles as contained in section 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. Her Honour considered the aggravating features in the matter, including the significant injuries sustained and the fact that there was no safe system of work in place for the task being undertaken. In mitigation, her Honour noted the defendant’s early plea of guilty, its lack of prior history for like offences, its cooperation with the investigation, including participating in a voluntary interview during which it made frank admissions, and its sincere remorse, among other factors.

Her Honour considered the financial circumstances of the defendant, noting that the company was small, it made losses the previous two years, and that any fine imposed would have a significant burden on the defendant.

Her Honour considered that the starting point was a fine in the order of $200,000, however exercised her discretion and reduced this to take into account the early plea of guilty and the defendant’s cooperation.

Taking into account all matters, her Honour imposed a fine of $150,000.  With reference to the factors contained in section 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, her Honour exercised her discretion to not record a conviction.

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