On 26 April 2023, a company (‘the PCBU’) and its sole director (‘the director’) were fined a total of $125,000 in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court for offences under section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’) having failed to comply with their primary health and safety duties pursuant to sections 19(1) and 27(1) of the Act.

The PCBU was sentenced for two category 2 offences which arose from risks to workers from their operation of items of food processing plant at the workplace. The director was sentenced for two category 2 offences which arose from his failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the PCBU complied with its duty to address those risks to workers from operation of said plant at the workplace.  

The first offences arose from a noodle making machine which had been operated by the injured worker (the “worker”) at the workplace between 31 August 2018 – 31 December 2019. The worker was placed at risk from the dough hopper of the machine, which had two cylindrical steel shaft agitators with protruding bars, which was unguarded. In operating the machine, the worker would place his hand into the hopper, as it was operating, to clear the pastry dough. He was at risk of serious injury if his hand or other body part came into contact with the moving parts of the machine. This risk materialized on 30 December 2019 when the worker’s hand was caught by the operational agitator pulling his hand and arm further into the hopper causing the three protruding rods to penetrate his arm. The worker sustained distal radius fracture, medial nerve compression and three wounds. He required surgery and stitches.

The second offences related to a multifunction bun machine which had two hoppers. On 15 October 2020, another worker employed by the PCBU was operating the machine and was at risk of his hand or body parts coming into contact with the moving parts of the machine as the hoppers were unguarded. The risk did not materialize. The multifunction bun machine had been the subject of a prohibition notice issued by Work Health and Safety Queensland (‘WHSQ’) and guarding had previously been in place on the machine.

In sentencing, Magistrate Howden summarized each offence as being a failure by the PCBU  to address the hazard posed by the machines being operated by workers at the workplace. In sentencing the director, His Honour stated that the director had a presence at the workplace and was required to take reasonable steps to gain knowledge to identify the need for a risk assessment to be conducted on plant used and provide resources and processes to address the hazard of the machines.

Regard was had by his Honour to the sentencing principles set out in section 9 of the Penalties and Sentence Act 1992. His Honour advised that he had taken into account the pleas of guilty entered and the fact the community had been spared the cost of a contest hearing. His Honour accepted general deterrence was a key consideration for sentence and that “there is a need for persons conducting businesses, and those in charge of operating them, to know, understand and abide by their important legislated health and safety duties.” The importance of general deterrence was referenced.

His Honour accepted there was also a need for specific deterrence to ensure the PCBU and the director adopt and follow safe work procedures in the future. His Honour noted, in respect of the second offence, that both the PCBU and the director had been put on notice of the specific risks posed by the machine through the prior incident and information provided by WHSQ.

His Honour found assistance from the decisions of other Magistrates, provided by the prosecution, but the most assistance came from the District Court decisions in Guilfoyle v Wild Breads Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 58 and Reynolds v Tailored Adventures Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 150. His Honour noted that both decisions were distinguishable on the basis that they involved a single incident of offending, and that the PCBU was facing two. His Honour outlined the offending in this matter was more serious.

His Honour had regard to the statement of the injured worker, which was tendered and outlined his diagnosis of treatment.

Having regard to all these matters, his Honour fined the PCBU $110,000 and the director $15,000 along with costs, all of which were referred to SPER. His Honour exercised his discretion and did not record convictions against the defendants.  

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