Health and Safety Case Against Adams Distillery Dismissed After Worker Injured in Gin Still Fire

Introduction
A workplace health and safety prosecution against a northern Tasmanian gin distillery has been dismissed, with a magistrate finding it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the employer breached its duty of care. The case arose from a 2021 incident in which a distillery worker was seriously injured after a gin still ignited, leaving him enveloped in flames.

Details of the Incident
The incident occurred on February 9, 2021 at Adams Distillery in Perth, northern Tasmania. Distillery worker Greg Longmore, a builder by trade, had begun working in spirit production on January 18, 2021, following discussions with distillery co-director Adam Saunders, whom he had known for about a decade.

CCTV footage tendered in court showed Mr Longmore attempting to pour ethanol into a gin still while the gas burner was already lit, rather than following the usual process of adding water first, then ethanol, covering the still, and igniting the burner last.

“In the process of pouring the second quantity of ethanol into the gin still, it ignites and Mr Longmore is enveloped in flames,” Magistrate Evan Hughes said in his reasons.

Mr Longmore suffered extensive burns across his body as a result of the fire.

Prosecution Allegations
The Director of Public Prosecutions alleged Adams Distillery failed to ensure Mr Longmore:

• properly understood the instructions for gin production
• was adequately supervised until he became proficient
• could safely manage the risks associated with ethanol and open flames

The prosecution argued that deficiencies in training, supervision and safety systems contributed to the incident.

Training and Evidence Considered
The court heard Mr Longmore had no formal gin-making qualifications and was trained over a six-week period. He was provided with an employee handbook and a health and safety handbook, but neither document contained the correct gin-making procedure.

Mr Longmore told the court he had little memory of receiving training in gin production or of operating the gin still, accepting that his recollection had been significantly affected by his injuries.

Medical evidence showed Mr Longmore suffered amnesia as well as psychological impacts including anger, guilt and blame-focused thoughts.

Magistrate Hughes noted:
“Mr Longmore has stated in his evidence that he has little recollection of gin production at the distillery at any time, including between 18 January and 9 February 2021.”

While the magistrate did not find Mr Longmore untruthful, he said the reliability of his evidence had been impacted by the injuries he sustained.

‘Staged’ Training Process
Distillery co-director Adam Saunders told the court he provided a staged process of training and supervision.

According to Mr Saunders:

• on February 1 and 2, 2021, he made gin while Mr Longmore observed
• on February 3, they made gin together
• on February 4 and 5, Mr Longmore made four batches of gin under supervision

In a 2022 interview with WorkSafe, Mr Saunders repeatedly stated that the gas burner must be ignited last and said this requirement was demonstrated and explained to Mr Longmore on multiple occasions.

The magistrate acknowledged some of Mr Saunders’s evidence reflected hindsight, but accepted him as a truthful witness.

Court Decision
Magistrate Hughes dismissed the charge, finding the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

“I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr Saunders provided the instruction, training and assessment he described,” he said.

He concluded that while gin production is inherently dangerous due to the use of highly flammable ethanol, the steps required to carry out the process safely were properly explained, demonstrated and supervised.

Conclusion
The dismissal brings the four-year legal proceedings to an end, concluding a complex case that examined training adequacy, supervision, and the reliability of evidence following a serious workplace injury. While Mr Longmore’s injuries were severe, the court ultimately found Adams Distillery had met its legal obligations under Tasmania’s workplace health and safety laws.