On 20 May 2025, an individual was fined $5,000 in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court for two offences of making a false or misleading entry in a document required or permitted to be kept under the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (‘the Scheme’).

The defendant was a General Manager of a company involved in providing medical personnel to coal mines.

The offences concerned the health assessment reports for a particular coal mine worker who was engaged in medical work at coal mines. The worker had a condition which required him to undergo additional testing under the Scheme.

The day before the worker’s health assessment report was to expire, the defendant falsely amended the report for the worker. He amended the doctor’s details, findings and date, details about the further testing and gave the impression the doctor had approved the worker to engage in work at a coal mine (Charge 1). The defendant did not submit this report to the regulator, Resources Safety and Health Queensland. The prosecution invited the Court to draw the inference that this was because the particular doctor was not an Authorised Medical Adviser for the company the defendant worked for and, therefore, it would not have been accepted.

Shortly after Charge 1, he plagiarised a second doctor’s health assessment report for the worker. The second doctor had never seen the worker before. The fictional report gave the impression the second doctor had seen the worker, assessed him, assessed further testing results and had approved him to work at a coal mine (Charge 2). The defendant submitted this report to the regulator. The report was also relied on by a coal mine.

The worker continued to work at the coal mine for an extended period of time under the fictitious report. The offending was discovered some time later when the worker fell due to be tested again, under the fictitious report.

The second doctor was provided with a copy of the false report purportedly under his hand. He had never seen the worker before and reported the matter to the regulator.

The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest occasion.

At sentence, the Magistrate considered the defendant had brought the Scheme into disrepute by his actions and that there was a degree of protractedness in the offending.

It was an aggravating feature that the worker needed additional testing, and the defendant knew that, but committed the offences anyway.

It was also an aggravating feature that a year later the defendant casually admitted to plagiarising the second doctor’s report in an email to the worker. He also told the worker not to use the report number as it was wrong. It demonstrated the defendant had still not reflected on what he had done.

The Magistrate accepted the defendant was under pressure at the time when he committed the offences.

The Magistrate took into account the defendant’s glowing references from 2004, 2007 and 2008, and noted he had retired since offending and was involved in the care of elderly relatives.

General and personal deterrence were the significant features of the sentence; personal deterrence to a lesser degree now he had retired.

Her Honour fined the defendant $5,000. Her Honour exercised the discretion not to record a conviction given the defendant’s intention to commence volunteering work and noting he may wish to travel overseas in future. Her Honour ordered court costs of $105.35. The prosecution did not apply for professional costs, and the regulator did not apply for investigation costs.

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