On 26 October 2026 a worker was sentenced in the Hervey Bay Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’), having failed to comply with his primary health and safety duty.

On 18 March 2025, the defendant attended an address with a truck and pallet jack to retrieve a delivery of charcoal that was mistaken delivered to the wrong address. Each pallet contained 44 bags of charcoal, weighing an approximate total of 836kg. The defendant used the pallet jack to manoeuvre the pallet of charcoal onto the tail lifter of his truck. The tail lifter was rated to 600kg. The charcoal load was both overweight and oversized for the tail lifter to be safely used.

He sought the assistance of two workers of the other business to get the pallet on his truck. The two workers assisted with stabilising the pallet by holding it in place as directed by the defendant. As the lift platform was raised by the defendant, the load became unstable and fell forwards toward both workers. One worker was able to move out of the way, sustaining only minor cuts to his left arm. The second worker was struck and pinned by the fallen pallet of charcoal, causing him to lose consciousness. He suffered a femur fracture, and lacerations over his knee and eyebrow. He required surgery and was hospitalised for seven days.

Work Health and Safety Queensland were notified the same day and commenced an investigation. The defendant voluntarily made frank admissions. He admitted the task was not one he had done before as the charcoal was ordinarily delivered to his business where a forklift was used to unload it. He was unsure why he did not think about the task and consider the load limits of the pallet jack and tail lifter.

Magistrate McGarvie noted the weather event at the time offered some context to the defendant’s decision making and accepted that his oversight was genuine. Her Honour found the risk of the oversized load falling off the tail lifter was obvious and the fact the risk materialised was an aggravating feature. It was also accepted the defendant had procedures at his own workplace which should have indicated to him to stop and think, instead of rush.

In imposing a sentence, her Honour had regard for the objective seriousness of the offence, the steps to mitigate the risk were not complicated or costly, while they were inconvenient, they were not insurmountable. Her Honour had regard for the need to impose a penalty that reflected the need for general deterrence and denunciation, to serve as a reminder to others to stop, think, and consider the safety of other people.

Her Honour reduced the penalty she otherwise would have imposed accepting matters in mitigation including the defendant had entered an early plea of guilty, had no criminal history, was of good character who contributed to the community, he had expressed genuine remorse and had fulsomely cooperated with the investigation.

A fine of $10,000 was imposed and no conviction was recorded.

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