On 15 November 2024, a crane company was sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duties.

The charge arose from an incident in which a worker of the defendant, sustained a serious injury when part of a crane boom, which he was assisting to de-rig, fell onto his left foot.

The defendant had hired a crane to another entity and the defendant was required to attend the workplace to de-rig the crane and take it away. This work was allocated to a crane supervisor.

Prior to leaving the defendant’s depot, the supervisor directed the worker to join him at the workplace for the purposes of de-rigging the crane. In making this direction, the supervisor failed to comply with the defendant’s staff allocation policies.

At the workplace, both the supervisor and the worker undertook an induction and reviewed the client’s Safe Work Method Statement (‘SWMS’) for de-rigging plant. They then proceeded to de-rig the crane which involved positioning the 12-metre-long lattice boom of the crane onto a truck trailer for transportation and then to remove the connecting pins to disconnect the tip section of the boom from the bus or base end of the boom.

The last task involved knocking out a connecting pin, a task which the worker undertook. When the worker knocked the pin free, the tip section of the boom fell a distance of 500mm onto his foot which he had positioned between the boom and dunnage. He sustained serious injuries including amputation of the 2nd to 5th toes of his left foot and a psychological injury.

The SWMS of the defendant and the Operator’s Manual for the crane required that the bridle (or spreader) be pinned to the base section of the boom before removal of the interconnecting pins. This was not done.

The defendant’s SWMS for de-rigging cranes was inadequate as it did not sequentially list the relevant task, although it did reference pinning the bridle to the butt of the boom. It did not reference removing connecting pins from a position remote from the trailer to avoid being struck by the boom.

In sentencing the defendant, Magistrate Pinder accepted that it was a significant and serious breach. He held that the defendant’s safety measures fell well short of what required, particularly given the nature of the industry was inherently high risk.

His Honour had regard to the victim impact statement of the worker and that he would suffer from life-long injuries, which was a significant impact. He considered general deterrence and denunciation were relevant sentencing principles.
He rejected the defendant’s submission for a nominal punishment and noted this was not consistent with the authorities.

His Honour accepted that the defendant had taken appropriate measures post-incident to ensure the risk was managed. However, his Honour referred to the comments of her Honour Judge Fantin in Mac Plant, namely that care must be taken when giving a defendant credit for what it should have done to comply with its duty in the first instance.

In mitigation, he took into account the defendant’s plea of guilty as indicative of remorse, considered affidavit material and accepted the defendant was a good corporate citizen with no prior convictions

His Honour also considered various authorities, and, in all of the circumstances, given the serious nature of the breach, he convicted and fined the defendant $50,000 plus costs of $1500 and $101.40 for filing. The fine was referred to SPER. No conviction was recorded.

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