On 30 September 2024, a crane auditing company, and one of its employees, were sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching sections 19 and 28 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with their primary health and safety duties.

The defendant company operated a crane auditing business in Southport, Queensland. They employed a general manager (GM), whose primary role in the company was to compile and sign off on all safety audits.

On three separate occasions, 21 May 2019, 1 June 2020 and 16 September 2021 the GM signed off on inspections and audits on a particular crane and deemed that crane compliant, when it was not.

On 6 May 2022 an incident occurred at a worksite in Maryborough which involved the crane. A worker was operating the crane and lifting a steel beam. The worker fully extended the boom, which caused two blocking, and the hoist rope to snap. The beam fell onto another worker’s head causing serious injuries to him. The injured worker was taken to hospital where he received treatment for a laceration to his head.

The investigation found that the crane was not fitted with an anti-two blocking limiting device which would have prevented the incident from occurring.

The defendant’s failures can be identified in two parts (1) they did not keep up to date knowledge of the relevant safety standards, and (2) they failed to identify that the crane was not fitted with an anti-two block limiting device.  

In sentencing the defendants, Magistrate Milburn noted the defendant’s plea of guilty, which demonstrated remorse and saves the community time and expense.  His Honour noted that any sentence imposed was to communicate society’s condemnation of unsafe workplaces. Notwithstanding the defendant’s good character, the principle of general deterrence was very relevant in these matters. It is important that other employers and workplaces recognise or are aware of their obligations to create and maintain a safe workplace.  

His Honour noted that the company, and the individual, did not keep up to date with the relevant safety standards. It was noted that there was a change in 2011 to the relevant standards, and these changes were overlooked by the defendant who had been in the industry for some time.

The offending occurred over a period of time, and involved three separate inspections. This was not a one-off incident. To his credit the defendant made full admissions to the offending and provided assistance to investigators.

His Honour noted the relevance of the limiting device on the crane and its importance to safety as it would have stopped the motion of the crane. His Honour noted that the operator of the crane was not licenced at the time, did not conduct relevant safety checks and did not implement an exclusion zone. His Honour noted that the actions of the operator in causing the eventual incident were relevant in his determination of penalty.

His Honour indicated that he ameliorated the penalty imposed on the individual defendant due to the positive reference tendered, his good work history and lack of prior convictions, and his capacity to pay a significant fine.

His Honour ordered that the corporate defendant be fined $85,000 plus costs of $750 and $101.40 for filing. The fine was referred to SPER. No conviction was recorded.

His Honour ordered that the individual defendant be fined $10,000 plus costs of $750 and $101.40 for filing. The fine was referred to SPER. No conviction was recorded.

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