On 25 July 2025, Pivotal Plant Pty Ltd (Externally Administered) was sentenced in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court for breaching section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the Act’) when a 16-year-old volunteer child worker was struck and run over by an unmanned multi-tyred road roller whilst they were engaged in asphalt laying work activities at a residence in Alberton in Queensland.  The duty held by the company required it, as a person with management or control of plant, to ensure such plant was safe and without risk to workers at its workplace.

The company conducted an asphalt laying business which, due to the nature of its work, had, from time to time, varied workplaces. On and around 12 October 2022 its workplace included a domestic dwelling located at Alberton, Queensland where the homeowners had contracted it to lay an asphalt driveway at the residence. Asphalt laying preparation commenced on 10 October 2022 and was carried out via various items of mobile construction equipment, including road rollers. Whilst carrying out work the 16-year-old was run over by an unmanned Sakai multi-tyred roller, receiving multiple crush injuries from which they died at the scene.

During the investigation it was established the deceased child had been undertaking various work tasks over the preceding 3 days including labouring duties. The 16-year-old had also been observed on several occasions to operate the Sakai roller to compact the newly laid asphalt.

The investigation also established the child was an unpaid volunteer at the Alberton workplace, as well as other workplaces of the company over the preceding 3 months, and was carrying out work for work experience so that the 16-year-old could learn the business and hopefully obtain a job with the company. This arrangement had been made through the company’s supervisor.

The roller was inspected, which revealed it was not equipped with an interlock device which meant it could be started, placed in gear and would commence travelling without an operator remaining in the operator’s seat. The installation of such an interlock device was a well-known safety feature that could have been installed to enhance operator safety.

The company produced a safe work method statement (‘SWMS’) it asserted applied generally to operation of plant at its workplaces. This document detailed that only authorised operators are to operate plant; this included the roller. The deceased child had not been assessed or authorised to operate the roller and had not been shown the SWMS. 

The investigation revealed there was no direct witness to the incident involving the deceased child. The incident came to the notice of persons in attendance when one of the homeowners observed the roller travelling slowly, unmanned, on the newly laid asphalt driveway with this person observing “legs and boots coming from the side of the roller” and they immediately raised concerns. Workers and the homeowners went to the incident area to render assistance, emergency services were called, though the child died on site from the severe injuries he had received. The persons who immediately attended observed that the roller had run over the deceased child. 

As part of the investigation workers identified to the inspectors that the roller would, at times, pick up the newly laid asphalt; a condition well-known and described in the industry as ‘asphalt delamination’. Plant that is used to roll the newly laid hot asphalt requires fluid, usually water, to be sprayed on the roller tyres to reduce this condition occurring. One of the maintenance issues identified on the roller during the inspection undertaken post-incident was that some of the water sprayers did not work in discharging water spray on to the roller tyres. Without this water spray the roller tyres were susceptible to picking up the newly laid/rolled asphalt. 

A worker stated, in relation to the delaminating issue on the roller, that he would manually scrap the roller wheels when the delaminating occurred. He stated he would undertake this task with a person slowly driving the roller away from him as he scrapped the wheels. He further stated he had, on occasion, also alighted from the roller whilst it continued travelling, unmanned, under power and then scrapped the wheels. He again stated that he did this with the roller moving away from him. This person stated he had not shown the child worker how to scrap the roller tyres in this manner. 

The company should have implemented the following controls to eliminate or minimise the risk, so far as reasonably practicable –

1. prohibited workers from operating plant, including the Sakai multi-tyred roller, unless they were authorised to operate same; and
2. ensured only trained, assessed and authorised workers were permitted to operate the Sakai multi-tyred roller; and
3. had in place adequate systems for supervision at its workplace to ensure only authorised operators operated its plant. 

SENTENCING REMARKS: Her Honour referred extensively to the statement of facts and the Prosecution’s sentencing outline of submissions. In noting the particularised failures her Honour found the company had failed abjectly. Her Honour noted the SWMS produced to investigators of WHSQ was for another site though it clearly articulated that plant, like the roller operated by the child worker, was not to be operated unless the operator had been instructed and trained and deemed competent. That had not occurred in relation to the deceased child. Her Honour accepted prosecution submissions the defendant company had failed in completing the risk management process.

Her Honour outlined the matters within the Penalties and Sentences Act, finding that general deterrence and denunciation loomed large in her considerations on penalty. Her Honour observed that the incident should not have occurred and was entirely preventable. The defendant company had the answer in its own SWMS; prohibiting the young worker from operating the roller. 

Her Honour considered the aggravating features included the above lack of authorisation to operate the roller along with the inexperienced young worker who did not have knowledge or experience in this type of work as well as the lack of supervision of this worker. Her Honour had regard to the prosecution submissions relating to the Codes of Practice applicable, observing these documents are freely accessible and are designed to educate employers to prevent harm; harm that had sadly occurred at this workplace. 

Her Honour observed, after hearing the deceased child’s mother outline the impact of this offending on her and her family that by all accounts the deceased was a young person full of life and potential. Magistrate Clohessy noted, in mitigation, the company had co-operated with the investigation and had no previous convictions for like matters. Her Honour exercised her discretion to record a conviction stating the nature and seriousness of the offending, which involved an abject failure by the defendant company to discharge its duties required denunciation.

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