Why Rosemary Anne Gamble will be found guilty

Ms Rosemary Gamble is currently in the middle of a hearing in her involvement in the deaths of 6 children.

Photograph: Ethan James/AAP

Media exaggeration and inaccuracy

Whilst The Guardian and ABC have tried their best to cover it, their lack of knowledge in WHS Law is quite obvious with their articles. Instead of sticking to the facts at issue they seem to focus more on people swearing at the court whilst walking out of the room. While such incidents may be newsworthy, it's crucial for reporting to maintain a balanced focus on the legal facts and the charges at hand.

Media outlets have referred to Taz-Zorb as a company. In reality, Taz-Zorb is a trading name used by Ms Gamble.

According to the ABC, Ms Gamble has been charged with a Category 2 WHS Offence which for Tasmania is outlined in Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas) s 32. The maximum penalty Ms Gamble faces is a fine of $300,000 - Ms Gamble does not face any risk of imprisonment as they were not charged under s 31 (5 years max) or s 29C (21 years max).

Facts of the case

The case centers on a tragic incident that occurred at Hillcrest Primary School in Tasmania on 16 December 2021, when a jumping castle was lifted into the air by a sudden gust of wind. Nine children fell from a significant height, leading to the deaths of six and severe injuries to three others.

Ms Gamble operated the jumping castle under the trading name "Taz-Zorb," which is not a registered company but a sole trader operation. The jumping castle was part of a “Big Day In” event for the end of the school term, intended to provide a fun and safe environment for the students. Weather conditions, however, became volatile, with strong winds that lifted the inflatable structure unexpectedly.

A critical element in the prosecution’s case against Ms. Rosemary Anne Gamble focuses on the use of insufficient anchoring pegs for the jumping castle involved in the Hillcrest Primary School incident. The manufacturer’s guidelines reportedly recommended using eight pegs for safe operation of the inflatable structure, yet only four were used.

Australian Standard AS 3533.4.1 outlines specific requirements for the design, manufacture, and operation of land-borne inflatable devices, including guidelines for anchoring systems. This standard emphasizes the importance of using appropriate anchoring methods to ensure the stability and safety of inflatable structures.

The standard includes the appropriate peg thickness is 16mm, not 10mm (the pegs that were used).

The manufacturer’s instructions for the jumping castle used in the Hillcrest Primary School incident specified that eight anchor points were required to safely secure the structure. However, only four anchor points were actually utilized during setup. This failure to follow the manufacturer’s recommended anchoring procedure likely compromised the stability of the inflatable, contributing to the tragic incident.

Another key issue raised was the provision of Information, training, and instruction to workers. Mr Monte (a worker for and romantic partner of Ms Gamble) is quoted by the ABC as saying "We did a lot of YouTube searching, watching other people... how they set up castles". Clearly watching a youtube video in how to set up equipment is not adequate training.

Likely penalty

I believe the prosecutor has presented more than enough evidence to show that not only was an offence committed, but it was committed with gross negligence (a mistake no person in a similar position should make) so I am unsure why they have brought such a lenient charge when s 31 and s 29C are available.

As they have charged Ms Gamble under s 32, the maximum penalty is a $300,000 fine + Court costs (a multi-week hearing would accrue about $50,000 - $80,000 in costs). As she has entered a plea of not-guilty, and the offence is objectively serious - she would be on the hook for the maximum penalty. That being said, a magistrate may give a lesser penalty due to lack of capacity to pay or if they believe the offender is unlikely to reoffend.

It is my belief that Ms Gamble will be found guilty as:

• She had a duty of care over the children (outlined in WHS Act s 19, creating what is known as a s19/32 offence in these cases), and

• She did not follow the Code of Practice for Amusement Devices (published by Safe Work Australia in 2016), and

• She did not ensure she and her workers were given adequate training, instruction, and supervision (another s19/32 offence), and

• She did not adhere to Australian Standards relevant to her work (yet another s19/32 offence).

It is unclear why a plea of not guilty was entered. Hopefully the penalty issued does bring a tiny amount of closure to the families, but the DPP in Tasmania also has the option to charge Ms Gamble with Manslaughter at a later date should they believe that is necessary.