Publications

Case note – Director of Public Prosecutions v Rosemary Gamble t/as Taz-Zorb [2025] TASMC 3

Published on July 30, 2025 by Georgia Comans and Julia Harrison

The owner of Taz-Zorb, Ms Rosemary Gamble, has been acquitted of charges under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas) (‘the Act’) following the 2021 tragedy at Hillcrest Primary School in Devonport Tasmania.

Ms Gamble’s business, Taz-Zorb, was engaged to provide jumping castle and Zorb balls to Hillcrest Primary School to celebrate their end of year celebrations. At around 10:00am, students were using jumping castle when an unforeseen weather event occurred causing the anchor points to dislodge from the ground and the jumping castle to lift into the air. The jumping castle flew more than 60 metres, and six students fell off or were hit, sustaining fatal injuries. Other students suffered significant injuries after being hit with parts of the jumping castle.

This tragic incident saw Ms Gamble charged with a Category 2 offence under section 32 of the Act [1] and carries fines of up to $300,000. Ms Gamble was charged with failing, so far as was reasonably practicable,[2] to ensure that the health and safety of other persons was not put at risk from work carried out as part of her business and by that failure, exposing persons to a risk of death or serious injury.

This charge specifically related to Ms Gamble’s duty of care to ensure the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work, in particular, adequate anchorage systems of the jumping castle.

It was also alleged that Ms Gamble had failed to ensure that the anchorage system holding the jumping castle to the ground was sufficient to prevent it from being lifted into the air.

The prosecution’s case was that Ms Gamble had failed in her duty by exposing students to the risk of injury and/or death arising from falls at a height or being struck by parts of the jumping castle due to the anchorage points becoming dislodged.

The prosecution was required to prove three elements beyond reasonable doubt to satisfy the charge:

1. That Ms Gamble had a health and safety and duty under section 32(a) of the Act[3] and;
2. That Ms Gamble failed to comply with that duty under section 32(b) of the Act[4]; and
3. That the failure exposed the children to a risk of serious injury and/or death [5].

The court proceedings  

During the trial, there were a significant number of eye witnesses called to give evidence regarding the weather on the day of the incident.

The witnesses agreed that the day was perfectly sunny with no wind, and then at approximately 10:00am, a sort of “miniature tornado with dust swirling around”[6] appeared. The witnesses recalled seeing the Zorb-balls bouncing around and the jumping castle flying up into the air.

The Court also heard evidence regarding the manufacturer that Ms Gamble had purchased the jumping castle from, East Inflatables Manufacturing Co. There were alarming claims of misconduct on the part of the manufacturing company, including encouraging Ms Gamble to try and deceive Australian Customs. However most concerning was the fact that Ms Gamble was only provided with four anchorage pegs rather than the eight required, and no safety manual or instructions.

Ms Gamble’s case was that she relied on the manufacturing company’s assertion that the jumping castle complied with Australian standards, and had downloaded the safety manual from their website as instructed.

Expert evidence was key at this trial, as determining the foreseeability of the extreme weather event was crucial in the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution called a meteorological expert, Dr Nicholas Earl-Jones. Dr Earl-Jones told the Court that he was “absolutely certain”[7] the weather event was a dust devil, as a “dust devil was the only realistic possibility[8].” Importantly, Dr Earl-Jones indicated “it’s impossible to predict a dust devil in my opinion, with any kind of accuracy”[9] in Devonport, Tasmania. The defence did not call an expert meteorologist.

Both the prosecution and the defence called expert engineers to give evidence as to why the anchorage system failed.

The prosecution called Mr Roderick McDonald who told the Court that the incident occurred because of insufficient anchorage. He explained that the use of four pegs instead of eight allowed wind to get underneath the jumping castle and lift it into the air.

The defence called Professor David Eager who told the Court that it was the dust devil that caused the jumping castle to lift, and that the anchorage failed because of the unpredictable weather event [10].

Ms Gamble’s case and the Judgment

Turning to the three elements that the prosecution was required to prove to make out the offence under section 32 of the Act, the defence (Ms Gamble’s) case is summarised as follows:

32(a)      Ms Gamble did not dispute that she had a health and safety duty.

The question of what is reasonably practicable required the consideration of whether the risk of injury to the children was foreseeable.

32(b)      Ms Gamble’s position was that she had not failed to comply with her duty as the dust devil was an unexpected, unforeseeable weather event which was outside the range of ordinary human experience [11].

32(c)      It was also Ms Gamble’s case that there were no reasonable or practicable measures she could have taken which would have reduced or eliminated the risk that a dust devil would lift the jumping castle into the air.

His Honour Magistrate Webster ultimately held:

32(a)       Ms Gamble had a health and safety duty.

32(b)       In some aspects Ms Gamble failed to comply with her duty, including using only four instead of the eight pegs required by Australian Standards.

32(c)       His Honour was not satisfied that the failures under section 32(b) were a substantial or significant cause of the children being exposed to serious injury and/or death.

His Honour summarised his findings:

“Ms Gamble could have done more or taken further steps however given the effects of the unforeseen and unforeseeable dust devil, had she done so, that would sadly have made no difference to the ultimate outcome [12].”

The charges were ultimately dismissed against Ms Gamble.

The next steps

As this case has concluded, the Chief Coroner Olivia McTaggart of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania is now able to continue with the investigative process leading to a Coronial Inquest [13].

Should the matter proceed to an Inquest, it will be interesting to consider how any recommendations from the Chief Coroner aimed at preventing similar deaths in future might impact business owners and manufacturers.

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you. If you or a loved one have been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.

---

[1] Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas), s 32.

[2] Ibid. s 19.

[3] Ibid. s 32(a).

[4] Ibid. s 32(b).

[5] Ibid. s 32(c).

[6] Director of Public Prosecutions v Rosemary Gamble t/as Taz-Zorb [2025] TASMC 3 at [81].

[7] Ibid [112].

[8] Ibid [112].

[9] Ibid [126].

[10] Ibid [464].

[11] Ibid [450].

[12] Ibid [782].

[13] https://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/coronerscourt/news/hillcrest-inquest-update