On 18 December 2024, a company was sentenced in the Cleveland Magistrates Court for breaching section 40(1)(b) of the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with their primary health and safety duty.

On 16 June 2022 several workers from the defendant company undertook a task at a quarry in Redlands. The company was being assisted with the task by workers from the quarry. The workers from the defendant company were tasked with replacing a conveyor belt. During the task, a rope which was being used, came under increasing tension and snapped. The rope struck one worker to the face, causing him to lose an eye, and another to the upper chest/throat area which caused bodily injury.

Counsel for the prosecution noted that the gravamen of the offending was in a failure by the defendant to carry out a risk assessment prior to undertaking the belt-replacement at the quarry. He noted the importance of the Job Safety and Environmental Analysis (JSEA) – and the fact that it is not just an administrative control as identified by defence. A failure to identify risks is the first line of defence. Counsel reiterated that it is not alleged that the defendant’s failures caused the injuries to the workers. He noted that the injuries suffered to the workers is merely relevant to an assessment of the potential risk.

Counsel referred to comparable sentences and reiterated that general deterrence is the main issue which is present.

His Honour noted that the defendant is a good corporate citizen, has contributed to the community, has shown great remorse, has invested in safety (over $20,000), and is a small scale operation. He noted the importance of smaller businesses and their contribution to the community. His Honour gave the defendant credit for having an unblemished record and for its early plea of guilty.

His Honour noted the involvement of the other duty holders in this matter. His Honour noted the actions of another defendant and whether his absence at the time of the incident could have affected the outcome.

Defence referred to the other duty holders being prosecuted in this matter, and the fact that the current defendants failure related to them assessing the risk and then advising the quarry operator who may or may not have acted on that information. Defence noted the comparable decisions provided by the prosecution and distinguished one matter by noting that the defendant was a quarry operator, and not a contractor as was the case here. Further, the operator in that matter had been made aware of the risk prior to the incident occurring, which was an aggravating feature.

His Honour gave a very brief decision. His Honour noted that it is clear how onerous it is on an employer to ensure safety systems are in place. He found that a range of $30,000 - $50,000 would be appropriate. He noted that this is a responsible company that has responded proactively to this incident.

His Honour ordered that the defendant be fined $35,000 plus costs of $2,000 and $101.40 for filing. The defendant was given 3 months to pay. No conviction was recorded.

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