On 3 October 2024, a company and its director in charge of lifeguarding at Airlie Beach Lagoon were sentenced in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The company failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty to ensure the health and safety of persons was not put at risk from its business providing lifeguarding services. The director failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the company complied with its duty.

The company successfully tendered to the Whitsunday Regional Council to provide lifeguard and water maintenance services at the Airlie Beach Lagoon. It developed and implemented a ‘Supervision Policy’, via its director, which indicated a minimum of two (2) staff would be on duty at one time and that one (1) of those staff should be a qualified lifeguard supervising, facing and watching patrons in the water at all times. This policy outlined a risk assessment was to be completed by the venue manager but this did not occur. Instead a method of work was adopted, per the policy implemented, where the number of lifeguards on duty was determined solely by the number of patrons in the Lagoon water. This was contrary to what was required by the Guidelines for Safe Pool Operations prepared by the Royal Life Saving Society (‘RLSSA GSPO’).

On 28 October 2018 Airlie Beach Lagoon was open to the public and at approximately 3:40pm two Chinese nationals, a father and son, entered the water of the Lagoon. The father started to struggle as he swam into the deeper water of the Lagoon with his son on his back. He then became immersed under water with his son too becoming immersed a short time later. The two lifeguards on duty did not detect the father and son in distress or immersed under water. Members of the public notified the lifeguards of the immersed father and son and despite attempts neither could be revived.

Post incident, in response to an improvement notice issued by Work Health and Safety Queensland the company implemented a new supervision plan which had three dedicated zones for supervision at the Lagoon, new observation platforms and an increase to the number of lifeguards on duty to four (4) between the hours of 10:00am to 6:00pm.

In sentencing, his Honour Magistrate Shillito accepted it was a timely plea of guilty despite the delay. It was noted that general and specific deterrence were particularly relevant sentencing considerations for offences under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and weight was placed on those principles arriving at his decision.

His Honour stated the offending had a mid to high seriousness as the risk was obvious and the steps taken were inadequate. It was noted the risk carried significant consequences and the fact actual harm resulted from the risk is not a feature of the charge but aggravates the penalty.

In mitigation it was accepted remorse had been demonstrated, both defendants were cooperative with the investigation and the director had ongoing mental health issues arising from the incident and consequential proceedings.

His Honour fined the company $250,000 and the director $45,000 with no convictions recorded.