On 17 February 2022, a truck driver was sentenced in the Longreach Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with his health and safety duty under section 29(b) of the Act, as a person at a workplace. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge. Magistrate Courtney fined the defendant $5000. No conviction was recorded.

The 35-year-old defendant was an experienced truck driver. On 8 February 2020, the defendant was working on a property located in Winton. The defendant was connecting trailers to a truck. He successfully connected two trailers behind the truck before attempting to connect a third. The wear pad on the third trailer was partially displaced, preventing proper connection of the trailer to the dolly at the rear of the second trailer.

The defendant sought assistance from an 18-year-old individual who was present at the workplace. The defendant instructed the individual to stand on the driver’s side of the third trailer and use a 1.5m broom handle to hold the wear pad in place while the dolly was connected to the third trailer. However, finding the broom handle was too short to achieve this, the individual moved underneath the trailer to hold the wear pad in place.

The defendant started reversing the truck. The defendant looked for the individual and could not see where the individual was, but continued reversing the truck regardless. The dolly connection at the rear of the second trailer passed underneath the coupling point of the third trailer. As a result, the individual was crushed between the dolly and the third trailer stand. The individual suffered significant crush injuries to his pelvis. He spent 18 days in hospital and was unable to work for seven months.

In sentencing the defendant Magistrate Courtney noted that the defendant was an experienced truck driver and was the only person at the workplace with proper knowledge and experience in coupling trailers. By comparison, the injured individual was only a young man albeit with some experience in rural work . It was the defendant who devised the plan for coupling the trailer and was in control of the attempt to do so. While the individual chose not to comply with the specific direction given by the defendant, his Honour noted that even the defendant’s original instructions to stand in proximity to two multi-tonne trailers as they were being connected placed the individual in danger. His Honour considered it aggravating that the defendant had failed to ensure the proposed plan for coupling of the trailers was carried out, and further, had failed to determine the location and safety of the individual before commencing to reverse the vehicle. His Honour also had regard to the injured individual’s physical and mental injuries and their ongoing impact on his life.

Magistrate Courtney took into account the maximum penalty for the offence and had regard to the principles contained in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. His Honour considered general deterrence to be of great importance in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, whereas personal deterrence did not loom large as a sentencing consideration given the defendant’s lack of prior criminal history. The defendant’s rehabilitation was also a relevant consideration to be given weight.

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