On 2 September 2025, a local government entity was sentenced in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’).

On 18 October 2023 at a workplace on the Capricorn Coast, the defendant employed a number of workers in the Parks and Open Spaces sector. One of the workers held Level 3 qualifications in Advanced Tree Felling; the other two workers were also qualified in chainsaw operation.

The workers attended the site of a fallen tree that was blocking a footpath. They developed a ‘plan of action’ to cut up the tree and placed safety cones around it as a temporary exclusion zone for the public.

The worker with Level 3 qualifications had the task of cutting up the tree. He commenced cutting on the northern side of the tree trunk, removing the crown branches with the chainsaw. The other two workers acted as ‘spotters’ and were on ‘clean-up’, removing sawn-off limbs and branches from the area. They were both working within the coned-off exclusion zone and neither worker was wearing a hardhat.

At the time of the incident, the trunk had been supported by a limb that was part of the tree and, as such, was not flat on the ground when the branches were being removed. The trunk of the tree rolled off the support of the limb in a clockwise direction (away from the worker operating the chainsaw) and this movement caused the 18cm-thick supporting limb to move upwards, hitting one of the workers in the side of the face. He received multiple head and facial fractures and lost consciousness for 2-3 minutes.

The defendant failed in its duty to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of workers was not put at risk from the work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking. The reasonably practicable control measures that the defendant could have implemented included:

1. Developing and implementing a safe work procedure for the dismantling of fallen trees on council land with chainsaw by:
   
   1. Undertaking a formal documented risk assessment in relation to the use of the chainsaw which identified hazards and risks associated with the procedure and measures to be taken to eliminate such risks or, if it was not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk, the measures to be taken to minimise the risk.
2. Implementing a mandatory requirement for workers to wear Personal Protective Equipment (‘PPE’) including hardhat.

The failure to comply with its duty exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury.

The Magistrate stated that the defendant relied upon the experience and training of its workers, but it was well established that even the best trained workers were capable of human error. His Honour did not accept the defendant’s submission that the movement of the tree limb was unpredictable because fallen trees and ‘spring-loaded limbs’ were notoriously difficult to predict.

He accepted the prosecution’s submission that the likelihood of the risk manifesting was moderate to high and stated that it was ‘inexplicable’ that two workers were within an exclusion zone not wearing PPE. This was a ‘prime example’ of why PCBUs ought not to rely on the subjective judgement of experienced workers who may often be influenced by the familiarity of the task they are performing. His Honour stated that this was why PCBUs were required to enforce safe work procedures and protocols, so that dangerous workplace incidents do not arise.

His Honour found that the defendant had in place a comprehensive system of risk controls and safety procedures that were supported by a supervisor, workplace health and safety coordinator, and advisors, along with highly skilled employees undertaking the work. His Honour had regard to the character of the defendant and found unequivocally that it was a model corporate citizen and employer. Its work history prior to this incident was exemplary and it was a major contributor to the local community and charities.

Having considered the relevant authorities, the objects of the Act, and the principles under the PSA, the Magistrate considered the appropriate penalty to be a fine of $60,000. He exercised his discretion to not record a conviction.

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