On 16 April 2025, a licensed basic scaffolder was sentenced in the Cleveland Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with his primary health and safety duty. The basis of the prosecution was that the defendant failed to take reasonable care that his acts or omissions did not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons, and that failure exposed an individual to a risk of serious injury or death. 

A scaffolding company was contracted to construct a perimeter of scaffolding on a multi-storey building being developed at Cleveland.

In February 2022, a team of workers engaged by the scaffolding company, under the supervision of the defendant, completed the final level of the scaffold.  On 16 February 2022, the defendant issued a handover certificate on behalf of the scaffolding company to the principal contractor certifying that the scaffold had been completed as required pursuant to section 225(2) of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 and Clause 6.3 of the Code of Practice. 

The scaffold certificate signed by the defendant electronically answered “Yes” to the question: “Is the structure tied in accordance with AS1576?”. This was incorrect. The scaffold certificate further answered, “Yes” to the question: “Are ties installed to Storm Scaffolding tie pattern and/or design?”. This also was incorrect.

On 26 February 2022, a section of the perimeter scaffolding along the eastern boundary of the workplace, erected by the defendant and his team, collapsed during a severe weather event.

The defendant failed to take reasonable care that he did not omit to ensure that the standards of the collapsed section of scaffold were ‘staggered’ and that raker ties were installed to the collapsed section. He also failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the handover certificate was not issued until the scaffold was competed in accordance with the scaffold plan, Australian Standards, the Code of Practice, and the Scaffolding Erection Manual.

While the scaffold was not in use at the time of collapse, workers were potentially at risk of death or serious injury, from falling scaffolding and from being struck by falling scaffolding components had they been working on the scaffold or below it at the time of collapse.  Occupants of the adjoining property to the eastern side of the workplace and members of the public accessing the business on that property, were similarly at risk.

In sentencing the defendant, Magistrate Sarra considered that the penalty ought to be a deterrence to not only the defendant but other licensed basic scaffolders that they must maintain a safe work site. He held that the offence was not an oversight or careless as the breach was significant to the integrity of the structure to keep workers safe. The certification of the handover certificate was a serious aggravating factor.

Magistrate Sarra told the defendant that ‘the buck’ stopped with him, he ought to have been ‘obsessive’ about ticking ‘those boxes’, and ‘but for the grace of God, it could have been worse’. He said the defendant was ‘lucky’ no one was injured. He also noted that the defendant had entered a late plea of guilty.

In mitigation, his Honour took into account the defendant’s plea, his early co-operation with investigators, his lack of previous breaches against the Act, and that he had four children who were financially reliant upon him.

His Honour also considered various authorities and, in all of the circumstances, given the serious nature of the breach and the importance of general deterrence, he convicted and fined the defendant $15,000. The fine was referred to SPER.

Magistrate Sarra exercised his discretion to not record a conviction. Costs of $1601.40 were also ordered.

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