On 16 September 2024, a company was sentenced in the Ipswich Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)(‘the Act’), having failed to comply with its primary health and safety duty under section 19(1) of the Act.

The defendant operates a meat wholesaling business in Churchill, Queensland. It commenced operations in February 2021. The workplace consists of a cold room and production facility. About 1.4 metres below the cold room and production area are loading docks, and to the left of the loading docks is a wash bay. A concrete slab slopes downwards towards a grated drain at the wash bay. At the time of the incident, there were no wheel stops or bollards to prevent trucks from rolling into the wall of the wash bay. Delivery drivers employed by the defendant generally commenced their shift around 3.00am, beginning with reversing their truck into the wash bay and cleaning it from the previous day before loading the deliveries for the day.

On 10 August 2021 at around 3.00am, 56-year-old worker and delivery driver Anthony Wayne Bennett (“Mr Bennett”) commenced his shift and was reversing a Mitsubishi Fuso refrigerated truck to position it at the wash bay. He had worked for the defendant since it commenced operations, but this was not his usual delivery truck. As Mr Bennett exited the truck, it started rolling backwards. He ran to the back of the truck and put a timber pallet at the rear wheels, then got back in the truck and drove forward. He again exited the truck and ran to the rear. The truck started slowly moving forwards. Mr Bennett ran back to the truck, jumped in the cabin and applied the foot brake, before getting back in the truck and moving forward a short distance. Mr Bennett stopped the truck and got out, and it continued to roll forward, before reversing as Mr Bennett again ran to the rear, where he was ultimately killed when the truck pinned him against the wall of the wash bay.

The subsequent investigation revealed that the handbrake of the truck was faulty. However, the defendant had not conducted a risk assessment in relation to the hazard of vehicle / mobile plant operation and interaction at the workplace, and there were no documented safety measures or controls in place, such as barriers. Ultimately, the fatal incident that occurred involved a materialisation of the risk of serious injury or death, and, by its plea of guilty, the defendant accepted that the particularised control measures were a reasonably practicable means of eliminating or minimising the risk, that ought to have been implemented. Post-incident, the defendant undertook various safety improvements, including developing a Traffic Management Plan and installing safety bollards around the washdown area.

In sentencing the defendant, Acting Magistrate Byrne outlined the legislative scheme and the  purposes of sentencing, together with the principles to be applied in sentencing for breaches of duty. His Honour referred to the objects of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (“the Act”), noting that the duties were positive, requiring a duty holder to search for, detect and eliminate, so far as reasonably practicable, risks to health and safety. He found the culpability of the defendant was high, in circumstances where reasonably foreseeable and demonstrable failures occurred in the defendant’s systems that resulted in the death of a 56-year-old worker – which he referred to as the ultimate adverse outcome. His Honour found that Mr Bennett’s death elevated the seriousness of the offending and, in such circumstances, a substantial penalty was required to be imposed to address the gravamen of the offending, particularly where simple steps could have been utilised to avoid the incident and the defendant held the primary duty.

His Honour comprehensively considered the various authorities the parties had offered as guidance, and also outlined in mitigation the plea of guilty and lack of prior convictions, together with the fact that the defendant is a good corporate citizen and fully cooperated with the investigation. He also noted that the underlying issue was the faulty handbrake which the defendant was unaware of, particularly given servicing history and requirements for workers to report defects, and the post-incident conduct, with the defendant undertaking various safety improvements. However, in aggravation, his Honour found that one of the most concerning features of the offending was that the hazard posed a real and foreseeable risk of injury or death on a daily basis over a 6-month period, that the breach and resulting incident manifested in a fatality, and that deterrence is particularly relevant in light of the objects of the Act. His Honour found that the risk was obvious and identifiable, and the probability of it high with the lack of safeguards in place, and that it could have been minimised or avoided if simple controls were in place, such as the installation of the safety bollards / wheel stops to prevent trucks reversing too far.

Ultimately, in all of the circumstances and having considered all of the facts and material before him, A/Magistrate Byrne convicted and fined the defendant $150,000, and exercised his discretion to not record a conviction.

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