10/02/2026
This recent judgement relates to a successful appeal by a PCBU to a prosecution under the Work Health and Safety Act following a fatal workplace event.
Thoughts - One might have assumed the signage at the crush point had identified a catastrophic safety hazard lurking therein to *all parties* involved in the design and operation of the plant - and perhaps might have been enough 'notice' to turn one's mind to the hazard, in order to contemplate it seriously, before letting a new trainee near it.
Our sincere condolences to Lee Ravlich's family. This would have been incredibly difficult to come to terms with.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dial A Tow Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell [2026] SAET 11
Appeal against a conviction under ss 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 upon remitter by the Court of Appeal – the Trial Deputy President Magistrate found a charge of a contravention of both s 19 and s 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 proven – this appeal upon remitter is by way of review and has concerned primarily whether the installation of a pressure-sensitive device or devices was a reasonably practicable measure for the appellant to have implemented in order to minimise the risk of a crushing injury between the headboard of a tow truck and a retracting tray to its resting position –
HELD – errors were made by the Trial Deputy President Magistrate requiring a review of the evidence by the Full Bench –
HELD – the warning signs provided by the designer and manufacturer of the tilt tray mechanism, AHRNS, were insufficient for the appellant, given its knowledge and experience in working with tow trucks, to discharge its obligation in accordance with s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2014 to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its employees –
HELD – the relevance of the recommendations of the third party subcontractor AHRNS was to be considered in context including it having provided the tilt mechanism without an engineering solution to an identified crush hazard and the specific measure of the introduction of a pressure-sensitive device which the respondent accepted upon appeal was the sole basis of the finding of guilty by the Deputy President Magistrate –
HELD – the evidence gave rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether, had the appellant sought the opinion of an independent safety expert, the installation of a pressure-sensitive device or a series of pressure-sensitive devices would have been recommended –
HELD – the finding of guilt is to be set aside and to be substituted with a verdict of acquittal.
