On or around 17 December 2021 the defendant was the branch manager of a heavy vehicle repair and maintenance business located at Chinchilla in Queensland. The defendant was a qualified heavy commercial vehicle mechanic.

In his position as branch manager the defendant undertook/supervised office related administrative duties as well as supervising the work undertaken in the workshop. He managed 5 workers.

The business had a number of workers including qualified diesel mechanics and, relative to this incident, it employed a school based apprentice diesel mechanic 16 years of age who had been employed for a period of 10 months in his apprenticeship by the business and the apprentice attended, during school term, one day a week, to receive instruction and carry out work tasks as directed. The defendant was one of the persons who would supervise and direct the apprentice in his work duties.

On the noted date the defendant and the school based apprentice commenced a mechanical repair on a Hook Lift truck to repair an hydraulic leak. The defendant located the truck in the workshop bay and raised the elevating bin located on the rear of the truck. The defendant has then deployed the vehicle’s on-board safety prop which has resulted in the bin being partially elevated and supported by that prop.

The workers accessed the leaking hydraulic valve which is located mid-way along the vehicle chassis (looking front – rear) and mid-way in from the side of the vehicle. To access the valve the workers had to lean in across from the side or climb on to the truck chassis; in both actions, the worker/s would be located underneath the elevated bin.

The defendant loosened the leaking valve and instructed the apprentice to remove it and place it on to the workbench. After giving this instruction, the defendant departed the workplace to undertake a short transport activity leaving the apprentice alone to carry out the valve removal task. In the course of removing the valve the elevated truck body has commenced to quickly lower, without warning, crushing the apprentice. Emergency services were called and attended and undertook a rescue. The apprentice died two days later from the multiple crush injuries he received.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (‘WHSQ’) and Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) personnel attended to undertake investigations. The investigation revealed the safety prop had its end securing pin sheared off which led to the prop collapsing and the elevated bin quickly lowering, trapping and crushing the apprentice worker.

WHSQ commissioned a technical report. The report author was provided the operator manual for deployment of the safety prop. The report findings detailed, inter alia, that the safety prop had been incorrectly deployed as the hooklift body (bin/container) was still impermissibly attached on to the hooklift frame. Further, the safety bar was deployed incorrectly causing the safety bar to be overloaded and to be at risk of failing without warning. The proper and safe way to carry out this hydraulic repair would have been to unload the hooklift bin back onto the ground, giving good access to the hydraulic valving without having a person working under a suspended load.

The defendant participated in two Records of Interview where he stated, inter alia, he had deployed the safety prop in the same manner that he did on this occasion as he had on three or four previous occasions; admitting he was unaware of the Safety Bar Operator Manual deployment requirements for use on the hooklift truck in question.

It was ascertained in the course of the investigation that the ‘bin’ located on the rear of the truck may be removed via operating the hooklift system within the cabin. It was further ascertained that workers, including the defendant, were aware the bin could be removed and that this occurred, from time to time, when bins were unloaded on to a vacant area at the rear of the business premises to facilitate servicing of trucks.

The elevated truck body was able to lower, uncontrolled, as the truck’s safety prop had been incorrectly deployed resulting in it failing and no other method had been implemented to support the elevated truck body, for example, a secondary tipper body safety prop.

In sentencing her Honour acknowledged the profound loss suffered by the family referring to the victim impact statements tendered in the sentence hearing. Her Honour referred to the objects of the Work Health and Safety Act, the maximum penalty that may be imposed and referred extensively to the particulars in the complaint and the tendered statement of facts when outlining the factual circumstances of the offending.

Her Honour noted the decisions referred that a duty holder must adopt a pro-active approach to safety; which was absent here. Her Honour referred extensively to the requirements of the P&S Act and the legal principles from the Nash decision (as referred to by Judge Fantin in Mac Plant) finding the injury was catastrophic and the consequences were high. Her Honour found the risk was obvious and no steps had been taken by the defendant to adequately control the risk; the steps described by her Honour as simple – remove the bin to undertake the repair or correctly deploy the safety prop – such steps not being complex nor inconvenient. Her Honour found the objective seriousness was in the upper end of the mid-range.

Her Honour noted general deterrence loomed large in her sentencing considerations though specific deterrence was less relevant as the defendant had moved employment and no longer supervised or managed workers. Her Honour outlined the defendant’s antecedents and accepted he had demonstrated remorse and through his plea of guilty he accepted his responsibility for the offending and had assisted the administration of justice. Her Honour found the plea entered was an early plea of guilty.

Her Honour found the offending was serious as the inexperienced worker was reliant on the defendant to ensure he was able to carry out his work safely. Her Honour found the defendant had failed to comply with the Risk Management COP and accepted prosecution submissions he had failed his duty as a worker, as a supervisor and as a manager. The crux of the defendant’s failure was his failure to obtain and consult the operator manual for the safety prop deployment. Her Honour observed that the deceased child’s family had placed a high level of trust in the defendant to keep their son safe. Her Honour accepted the defendant had cooperated with the investigation and had no previous convictions for any offending.

Her Honour noted the considerations as outlined in s.48 of the P&S Act and took account of these; noting the defendant had a young family and was the sole earner for his family. Her Honour imposed the sentence as noted and exercised her discretion to not record a conviction noting, and accepting defence submissions, the recording of a conviction would likely negatively impact the defendant’s current employment and future employment prospects.

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