On 18 December 2024, the defendant was convicted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court of a complaint against the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (the Act). The defendant, as a person conducting a business or undertaking, had a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers and the defendant failed to comply with that duty. The failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.

The defendant failed to develop and implement a safe procedure for a task involving unloading steel mesh from shipping containers which required the steel mesh to be removed by a mobile crane. The defendant should have required a suitably licenced and trained dogman or rigger to select and inspect appropriately rated slings and associated lifting equipment, apply an appropriate slinging technique, and safely direct the mobile crane to transport the steel mesh. Further, the defendant should have trained and instructed its workers in relation to the above procedure.

The defendant’s failure to do those things exposed people to a risk of death or serious injury between 1 December 2021 and 8 February 2023. The risk was realised on 8 February 2023 when an employee of the defendant was killed while they used a forklift, slings, and a metal chain to remove steel mesh from a shipping container.

Magistrate Pinder stated that the offending period was over a fairly lengthy period of time and the catalyst for it stopping was a worker’s death. His Honour considered the objective seriousness of the offending by assessing the potential consequences of the risk, the probability of the risk occurring, the availability of steps to lessen, minimise or remove the risk, whether those steps are complex and burdensome or mildly inconvenient and the particular offence in the context of the penalties to be imposed by the Act. His Honour also had regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the protection of workers against risk to health, and considered that general deterrence was a significant feature.

Magistrate Pinder noted that the defendant had no previous convictions and had taken steps after the incident to minimise or eliminate the risk of the offending occurring again, and therefore personal deterrence was a less relevant sentencing consideration.

His Honour stated that the defendant had the benefit of a timely plea of guilty, and it co-operated with the prosecution which was indicative of a genuine expression of remorse. The CEO of the defendant also gave evidence about support given to the next of kin, and charitable contributions made by the defendant.

Magistrate Pinder fined the defendant $250,000 and did not record a conviction.

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