Skip to content

  • Home
  • COVID-19 Guide
  • Podcast library
  • Client results
  • Expertise
  • News & Insights
  • People
  • Our DNA
  • Inclusion and Diversity
  • Join us
  • Contact Us
Home / NEWS & INSIGHTS / Insight / Dreamworld Inquest: could officers actually be imprisoned?
Insight 28 February 2020

Dreamworld Inquest: could officers actually be imprisoned?

Following findings in the Coronial inquest arising from the Dreamworld tragedy that have criticised the operating company’s safety systems and standards, the operating company has been referred to prosecuting authorities. However, the question remains, are Queensland’s Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws capable of seeing officers of a large entity actually found liable and subject to imprisonment? 

Background 

The Queensland Coroners Court has this week published its findings into the death of four members of the public at Dreamworld in October 2016.  The coronial findings are scathing, with Dreamworld’s approach to safety being described as ‘immature’ and ‘frighteningly unsophisticated’.  On this basis, Coroner McDougall reasonably suspected it may have committed an offence under workplace laws and referred the matter to the Office of Industrial Relations.  A mechanical engineer was also referred to the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland.

In response, the Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (OWHSP) is currently considering whether to take action against Ardent Leisure, the company that owns and operates Dreamworld.  However, neither the Coroner, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland or the OWHSP have yet flagged the potential for prosecution of officers.  This is despite the significant media attention focused on the Board and senior staff, and the Dreamworld incident being a trigger for the introduction of the industrial manslaughter offence into Queensland WHS laws in July 2018.

Imprisonment of officers in large companies – a bridge too far?

Coroner McDougall, in the Dreamworld inquest, said that its safety management system was ‘rudimentary and deficient’, finding that ‘such a culpable culture can exist only when leadership from the Board down are careless in respect of safety’.  Can comments like these translate into a successful prosecution, or imprisonment, of an officer of a large entity, such as Ardent Leisure?  The answer to that question is far from a resounding ‘yes’.

The industrial manslaughter provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) commenced after the deaths of the four park-goers in October 2016, so that offence is not available.  In any case, even if the provisions applied, an industrial manslaughter offence would not be triggered, as the offence only applies to the death of a ‘worker’, not other persons (such as visitors to Dreamworld).

Outside of industrial manslaughter, an officer or worker who breaches a WHS duty, and is reckless, can face up to five years imprisonment.  This offence has existed in Queensland since 1 January 2012 and, despite this, has not been regularly used.  Indeed, the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned one of the only instances of a successful prosecution of an officer, who was a sole-director of a small business just last year.[1]  The officer was later re-tried, with a jury acquitting him of all charges.

Where prosecutions, even those not involving recklessness, are taken against officers the cases usually involve a small business where directors are actually involved in day-to-day decisions.  As the ‘Boland Review’ found, in December 2018:

‘The identification of a grossly negligent individual who is the embodiment of a small company is not as problematic, as with small companies it is often the case that the director will be actively involved in day-to-day operations.’

The WHS laws, as currently drafted, make it more difficult for an officer of a large entity, who is not involved directly with the day-to-day operations, to be found liable.  The ‘recklessness’ offence requires the conduct of the officer to expose an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness.  A prosecutor must prove this element beyond reasonable doubt.  From a legal perspective, this is a challenging task for officers who operate well above day-to-day decision-making.

Despite the introduction of the industrial manslaughter offence, WHS regulators are yet to truly test the strength of Queensland’s WHS laws for white-collar officers in medium and large companies.     


[1]R v Lavin [2019] QCA 109.

For further information, please contact our authors below. 

This publication covers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not designed to express opinions on specific cases. It is intended for information purposes only and should not be regarded as legal advice. Further advice should be obtained before taking action on any issue dealt with in this publication.

About the authors

  • Cameron Dean

    Partner
  • Tom Reaburn

    Senior Associate
  • Liam Fraser

    Senior Associate

In other news

Branding on trend: Certification of Australian Fashion

10 May 2022Insight

Verification of identity: a refresher

10 May 2022Insight

Categorising land for rating purposes used for both permanent residential and temporary tourist accommodation

4 May 2022Insight

Court of Appeal decision brings welcome relief to local councils

4 May 2022Insight

VIEW ALL NEWS & INSIGHTS

BRISBANE

Level 11, 66 Eagle Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO Box 1855
Brisbane QLD 4001
Tel +61 7 3233 8888
Fax +61 7 3229 9949

 

GET IN TOUCH

    Contact form

    We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

    Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

    sydney

    Level 32, MLC Centre
    19 Martin Place
    Sydney NSW 2000
    GPO Box 462
    Sydney NSW 2001

    Tel +61 2 8241 5600
    Fax +61 2 8241 5699

     

    GET IN TOUCH

      Contact form


      We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

      Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

      melbourne

      Level 27, 101 Collins Street
      Melbourne VIC 3000
      GPO Box 2924
      Melbourne VIC 3001

      Tel +61 3 9067 3100
      Fax +61 3 9067 3199

       

      GET IN TOUCH

        Contact form

        We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

        Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

        follow us

        CLIENT LOGIN

        newcastle

        92 Young Street
        Carrington NSW 2294
        PO Box 394
        Newcastle NSW 2300

        Tel +61 2 4914 6900
        Fax +61 2 4914 6999

         

        GET IN TOUCH

          Contact form


          We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

          Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

          canberra

          Level 9, 2 Phillip Law Street
          Canberra ACT 2601

          Tel +61 2 6243 3669
          Fax +61 2 8241 5699

           

          GET IN TOUCH

            Contact form


            We handle your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy.

            Please do not send us any confidential information. By submitting this form, you agree that our review of the information you submit will not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and our firm (or any lawyer in our firm) and it will not prevent us from representing a party in any matter where the information you submit is relevant, even if that information could be used against you.

            © 2017 McCullough Robertson. Site map Disclaimer Privacy Policy Statement of Business Ethics Credit Reporting Policy

            X