David Routledge Fatality Prosecution Farce. RSHQ CEO Mark Stone and OWHSP- Queensland Mining Keystone Cops?
The latest so called successful prosecution for the Mr. David Routledge Fatality at the Middlemount Mine by RSHQ and the OWHSP (Office Workplace Health Safety Prosecutor) is another absolute farce and debacle.
This is the latest in a long line of almost identically handled cases.
In the last preliminary hearing the OWHSP stated
It is alleged no assessment and no effective measures were taken to mitigate any hazards after a blast – that occurred 10 days earlier – resulted in up to three metres of hanging rock on the high wall, which was identified as being a “Geotech issue”
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mackay/police-courts/david-routledge-death-charge-dropped-against-middlemount-mine-manager/news-story/a57c987bd3a44dacfc1e8f9e0f24fbc3h
If that is the case why were no individual with defined roles and responsibilities in those 10 SHMP held to account and charged
OWHSP in what was supposed to be a three week hearing, charged Middlemount Coal and the SSE (after also previously dropping charges against Mine Manager and OCE) over safety gaps in the Mines Safety and Health Management System causing the death of Mr. Routledge.
The same OWHSP then appears to have hired an EXPERT who completely destroys their own case
Workplace Health and Safety prosecutors removed any allegation those safety gaps caused the fatality.
An expert hired by WHS determined its lack did not cause Mr Routledge’s death and “had the requirements of the SHMS been complied with by individuals the incident concerning the … wall failure could have been avoided or adequately managed”
Magistrate Bronwyn Hartigan found there was a “sophisticated and robust Safety and Health Management System” at the mine at the time despite the lack of a GCMP as there were at least 10 health and safety management plans in place at the time, just not contained in the one document.
This included a Geotechnical Principal Hazard Management Plan “that was developed and finalised as a direct result” of interactions with the mine’s inspectorate.
“This is not a case where there was inaction or a lack of co-operation with the directives by Middlemount mine.
“There was a robust safety system in place albeit a gap in that system.”
Ms Hartigan agreed with Mr Murdoch that a penalty totalling 10 per cent of the maximum fine was appropriate. Middlemount Coal was fined $70,000 plus $110,000 in costs and a conviction was not recorded.
I might be a poor dumb bastard, but how the f… does this work.
- A shot in a known area of poor wall stability leaves hanging wall ten days before the fatality.
- no risk assessment and no effective measures were taken to mitigate any hazards after the blast
- Magistrate Bronwyn Hartigan found there was a “sophisticated and robust Safety and Health Management System” at the mine at the time despite the lack of a GCMP as there were at least 10 health and safety management plans in place at the time, just not contained in the one document
- There was no cavalier approach to safety, there was action in the form of a settled Geotechnical Principal Hazard Management Plan … and a draft Ground Control Management Plan,” Ms Hartigan said. “This is not a case where there was inaction or a lack of co-operation with the directives by Middlemount mine.
- “There was a robust safety system in place albeit a gap in that system.”
That both RSHQ and OWHSP get the order of safety and health wrong just completely demonstrates they have no real idea of the words in the Act and Regulations, let alone what they mean
How the hell do you come to a conclusion that none of the Management Involved have not breached their obligations to achieve an acceptable level of risk when there are “at least 10 health and safety management plans in place at the time”.
Each of these 10 Safety and Health Management System Plans (SHMS’s) would have had designated roles and responsibilities for the SSE, the Mine Manager, the Principal Mining Engineer, the Technical Services Superintendent, the Senior HS&T Advisor, any Geotechnical Consultant, and the Geology Superintendent – who also holds the primary responsibilities for geotechnical risk management under the Geotechnical PHMP)
Can someone also explain to me that how up to three metres of hanging rock on the high wall, which was identified as being a “Geotech issue”
Why was it not a potential multiple fatality safety issue?
How the f… can you have 10 SHMS plans with all those people in Management with Roles and Responsibilities and not one risk assessment was triggered and remedial action taken to eliminate risk or ensure workers were prevented from working in areas exposed to the risk from the three metres of overhanging highwall.
All they could decide is that it was a GEOTECH ISSUE not a SAFETY ISSUE.
Not in 10 Days was it identified as a potentially for multiple fatalities so operations should be suspended.
Not until Mr Routledge was killed working in an area that was obviously dangerous and posed an unacceptable level of risk.
All charges against the SSE Cuthbertson were dropped and Middlemount Coal Pty Ltd paid a small $70,000 fine and paid the costs of the Prosecution by RSHQ and OWHSP which would be many times the amount of the fine.
The OCE had a show cause notice to show why the should keep his OCE Ticket well over 3 years ago and surrendered it I believe.
SSE Cuthbertson has not had a show cause in the last 4 years and after the bumbled efforts of RSHQ and OWSHP never will
If anyone can make sense of how OWHSP brought such a set of bizarre and continually downgraded charges when their own expert witness seems to have destroyed their own case, you are better than me.
The OWSHP case was so poorly put together they again reached a dirty plea deal before the full hearing.
The worst and most unsurprising thing is that again there has been a continuation of what has become standard custom and practice of a completely ineffective enforcement process and any charges and cases seem driven by PR purposes by RSHQ and the Government
- Charges are steadily downgraded during preliminary hearings
- Charges are dropped against individuals from Management including the SSE and a 2 to 3 week full hearing has a date set.
- Before the full hearing a Deal is reached between OWHSP and legal Representatives.
- The Mining Company agrees to plead guilty to often further downgraded charges.
- As part of the plead deal, the Mining Company agrees to pay the costs of RSHQ and OWHSP.
- There is no RSHQ Investigation Report or formal evidence tendered. No sworn testimony by any witnesses, management and consultants; let alone Investigating Officers from RSHQ.
- Company receives a fine about 20% of the maximum.
- All Court Proceedings over in half a day.
- RSHQ Fatality Investigation Report is never voluntarily released by RSHQ
Like I dare say a number of people, within about a week of the Routledge Fatality I was provided with a short video of the failure of the highwall and huge size of the failure with many individual pieces larger than 40 foot shipping containers.
The same person who provided the video also told me that workers on Middlemount Mine were in the days leading up to the Fatality were
- Extremely concerned as this area of Middlemount Mine was well known for highwall failures.
- A number of workers had refused to work under the highwall in the shifts leading up to the fatality
This appears to be borne out by statement of the OWHSP in the preliminary proceedings
It is alleged no assessment and no effective measures were taken to mitigate any hazards after a blast – that occurred 10 days earlier – resulted in up to three metres of hanging rock on the high wall, which was identified as being a “Geotech issue”
I spelled out in this post how deeply involved RSHQ was in the proceeding 15 months in whatever passes for issuing of so called Directives and the continual time frame extension with some still not due to be completed until 2 months after Mr. Routledge was killed.
As I have said earlier on the David Routledge Fatality Prosecution is the latest of a long line of similarly handled case.
I will set this out in my next post
