On 9 August 2024, the defendant, an operator of a mine, was sentenced in the Brisbane Industrial Magistrates Court for failing to ensure that the risk to coal mine workers at its mine was at an acceptable level.

The defendant operated a mine in central Queensland. As part of the mining process, areas must be stabilized, through a process known as dragline bench preparation, so that draglines can operate. Dragline bench preparation includes a process that involves dozer operators pushing slots (dozer blades) of dirt and rock around the bench area to level the ground so that a dragline can sit on the bench (this process is referred to as dozer bench preparation). Once the dragline bench is prepared, the dragline can be brought in to remove the material to uncover coal.

During December 2018 dragline bench preparation was being conducted at the mine. Dozer bench preparation shifts were divided into day and night shifts and involved up to three dozers working on the bench at a time, removing rock and leveling the area.

On 31 December 2018, an incident occurred at the mine involving the death of a dozer operator, who had been conducting dragline bench preparation work.

The incident occurred after the dozer operator’s dozer began tramming out parallel to the bench edge towards crib at approximately 10.25pm. The dozer operator’s dozer changed direction and trammed over the bunded low wall edge, rolling approximately 18 metres down an embankment.

It was not alleged that the incident was caused by the defendant’s failures.

The sentence proceeded on the basis that the defendant’s safety and health management system at the mine did not include a standard work instruction (SWI) that included instructions specifically for the activity of ‘dozer bench preparation’ work at the mine that provided for the following measures:

1. new dozer push slots to be cut straight and square at 90 degrees to the highwall;
2. safety berms to be constructed to comply with the procedures for the design and construction of safety berms at the mine;
3. a full blade of material to be left at the end of each push when slot dozing.

Further, there was a risk that a coal mine worker performing dozer bench preparation work could suffer a serious or fatal injury in the absence of the implementation of a SWI that included specific instructions for the task and that provided for the following measures:

1. new dozer push slots to be cut straight and square at 90 degrees to the highwall;

2. safety berms to be constructed to comply with the procedures for the design and construction of safety berms at the mine;

3. a full blade of material to be left at the end of each push when slot dozing.

The defendant should have ensured the development and implementation of a SWI that included instructions specifically for dozer bench preparation work at the mine and that provided for the following measures:

1. new dozer push slots to be cut straight and square at 90 degrees to the highwall;

2. safety berms to be constructed to comply with the procedures for the design and construction of safety berms at the mine;

3. a full blade of material to be left at the end of each push when slot dozing.

The defendant’s failure to do so meant the risk to coal mine workers while its mine performing dozer bench preparation was not at an acceptable level as required by section 41(1)(a) of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (the Act), and therefore the defendant contravened section 34(e) of the Act.

The sentence imposed at the hearing

Industrial Magistrate Noud considered the facts of the matter, the maximum penalty, the material that was tendered, and the submissions made by the parties at the sentence hearing.

His Honour considered the lengthy history of the matter, the resolution of the matter as a charge on a simpliciter basis and took into account the defendant’s plea of guilty.

His Honour also took into account the objects of the Act, and that the objects of the Act are achieved by imposing obligations on coal mines to manage risk effectively.

His Honour considered the purposes of sentencing, including personal deterrence, general deterrence and rehabilitation of the defendant. His Honor noted that the defendant had pleaded guilty twice previously in 2007 and 2014 for other unrelated offending under the Act. His Honour balanced those previous findings of guilt with the objective seriousness of the offending, and other matters in mitigation for the defendant.

The defendant was fined $78,000 by Industrial Magistrate Noud. No conviction was recorded.

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