• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

SafetyRisk.net

Humanising Safety and Embracing Real Risk

  • Home
    • About
      • Privacy Policy
      • Contact
  • FREE
    • Slogans
      • Researchers Reveal the Top 10 Most Effective Safety Slogans Of All Time
      • When Slogans Don’t Work
      • CLASSIC, FAMOUS and INFAMOUS SAFETY QUOTES
      • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
      • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
      • COVID-19 (Coronavirus, Omicron) Health and Safety Slogans and Quotes for the Workplace
      • Safety Acronyms
      • You know Where You Can Stick Your Safety Slogans
      • Sayings, Slogans, Aphorisms and the Discourse of Simple
      • Spanish Safety Slogans – Consignas de seguridad
      • Safety Slogans List
      • Road Safety Slogans 2023
      • How to write your own safety slogans
      • Why Are Safety Slogans Important
      • Safety Slogans Don’t Save Lives
      • 40 Free Safety Slogans For the Workplace
      • Safety Slogans for Work
    • FREE SAFETY eBOOKS
    • Free Hotel and Resort Risk Management Checklist
    • FREE DOWNLOADS
    • TOP 50
    • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS
    • Find a Safety Consultant
    • Free Safety Program Documents
    • Psychology Of Safety
    • Safety Ideas That Work
    • HEALTH and SAFETY MANUALS
    • FREE SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT RESOURCES
    • Whats New In Safety
    • FUN SAFETY STUFF
    • Health and Safety Training
    • SAFETY COURSES
    • Safety Training Needs Analysis and Matrix
    • Top 20 Safety Books
    • This Toaster Is Hot
    • Free Covid-19 Toolbox Talks
    • Download Page – Please Be Patient With Larger Files…….
    • SAFETY IMAGES, Photos, Unsafe Pictures and Funny Fails
    • How to Calculate TRIFR, LTIFR and Other Health and Safety Indicators
    • Download Safety Moments from Human Resources Secretariat
  • Social Psychology Of Risk
    • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
    • Safety Psychology Terminology
    • Some Basics on Social Psychology & Risk
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk – Prof Karl E. Weick
    • The Psychology of Leadership in Risk
    • Conducting a Psychology and Culture Safety Walk
    • The Psychology of Conversion – 20 Tips to get Started
    • Understanding The Social Psychology of Risk And Safety
    • Psychology and safety
    • The Psychology of Safety
    • Hot Toaster
    • TALKING RISK VIDEOS
    • WHAT IS SAFETY
    • THE HOT TOASTER
    • THE ZERO HARM DEBATE
    • SEMIOTICS
    • LEADERSHIP
  • Dr Long Posts
    • ALL POSTS
    • Learning Styles Matter
    • There is no Hierarchy of Controls
    • Scaffolding, Readiness and ZPD in Learning
    • What Can Safety Learn From Playschool?
    • Presentation Tips for Safety People
    • Dialogue Do’s and Don’ts
    • It’s Only a Symbol
    • Ten Cautions About Safety Checklists
    • Zero is Unethical
    • First Report on Zero Survey
    • There is No Objectivity, Deal With it!
  • THEMES
    • Risk Myths
    • Safety Myths
    • Safety Culture Silences
    • Safety Culture
    • Psychological Health and Safety
    • Zero Harm
    • Due Diligence
  • Free Learning
    • Introduction to SPoR – Free
    • FREE RISK and SAFETY EBOOKS
    • FREE ebook – Guidance for the beginning OHS professional
    • Free EBook – Effective Safety Management Systems
    • Free EBook – Lessons I Have Learnt
  • Psychosocial Safety
    • What is Psychosocial Safety
    • Psychological Safety
      • What is Psychological Health and Safety at Work?
      • Managing psychosocial hazards at work
      • Psychological Safety – has it become the next Maslow’s hammer?
      • What is Psychosocial Safety
      • Psychological Safety Slogans and Quotes
      • What is Psychological Safety?
      • Understanding Psychological Terminology
      • Psycho-Social and Socio-Psychological, What’s the Difference?
      • Build a Psychologically Safe Workplace by Taking Risks and Analysing Failures
      • It’s not weird – it’s a psychological safety initiative!
You are here: Home / Safety Legislation / Why I do not support industrial manslaughter

Why I do not support industrial manslaughter

September 17, 2022 by Admin 6 Comments

Why I do not support industrial manslaughter

Article by Greg Smith, author of Paper Safe and Risky Conversations (Free Download)  – First published HERE

imageSee Greg’s related article: The Prosecution Problem

In a recent comment on a LinkedIn post I asked for evidence of how Industrial Manslaughter wold contribute to safe workplaces. In response, I got a reply noting I had often made this observation and asking for me to explain my position.

I have written about this several times, and links to my various articles are at the bottom of this one. However, I thought readers might find it useful if I provided a summary of what I see to be the problems with both industrial manslaughter and the use of criminal prosecutions as a deterrent in workplace health and safety.

My basic concern, both with criminal prosecution generally and industrial manslaughter specifically, is they do not contribute to safer workplaces. In the case of industrial manslaughter, I am concerned it will push legal risk management to a point where it starts to compromise workplace health and safety.

Summary of my position

In summary it is my view that:

1. The primary purpose of health and safety legislation is to create safer workplaces.

2. The primary purpose of health and safety legislation is not criminal punishment.

3. Criminal punishment is only valid in the context of health and safety legislation, to the extent that it improves health and safety outcomes.

4. There is no evidence that increasing fines and penalties for breaches of health and safety legislation improves health and safety outcomes.

5. None of the various reports arguing for the introduction of industrial manslaughter have pointed to improvements in health and safety outcomes as a reason for introducing industrial manslaughter.

6. The primary arguments for introducing industrial manslaughter are:

  • Administrative convenience – we want to harmonise legislation and some jurisdictions are introducing industrial manslaughter, therefore, we had all better introduce industrial manslaughter, so we all do the same thing; and
  • It is what people want – the “just deserts” theory of sentencing, whereby the punishment has to fit the public outrage about the severity of the offence (See for example Review of the model Work Health and Safety Laws – Final Report, December 2018).

7. As far I have been able to tell all the law societies, or representatives of lawyers, who have made submissions on the issue of industrial manslaughter have said it is unnecessary (See for example the Law Council of Australia submission to the Senate Education and Employment Reference Committee review into the framework surrounding the prevention, investigation and prosecution of industrial deaths in Australia, dated 30 May 2018).

8. There is evidence that increased “criminality” for breaches of occupational safety and health legislation can adversely affect health and safety outcomes. (See for example South Australian Coroner’s inquest into the death of Jorge Alberto Castillo-Riffo and Dekker., S. (2010) Pilots, Controllers and Mechanics on Trial: Cases, Concerns and Countermeasures, International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, Volume, Number 1).

9. While I would not pretend to speak for the families of people killed in workplace accidents, when I have spoken with them they talk to me about delay, bureaucracy, a lack of information, a lack of inquiry, a lack of transparency, not understanding the process and effectively being sidelined from the circumstances of their loved ones death (See for example: Education and Employment Reference Committee. They never came home – the framework surrounding the prevention, investigation and prosecution of industrial deaths in Australia). Industrial manslaughter is likely to increase legal complexity and legal risk management strategies (as opposed to safety risk management strategies) and exacerbate not mitigate, these concerns (See for example South Australian Coroner’s inquest into the death of Jorge Alberto Castillo-Riffo).

10. The historical evidence is clear that industrial manslaughter provisions will disproportionately be used against small business owners and small business directors (See for example: Neil Foster: Personal liability of company offices for corporate Occupational Health & Safety breaches).

11. Criminal legal proceedings are unlikely to make any difference at all to company officers or executive management legal liability in larger companies, because:

  • These provisions are only used against small business owners; and
  • In the criminal prosecutions the defendant (i.e. company office or company) can plead guilty and does not have to give any evidence – there is no public scrutiny of their behaviour in any real sense.

12. Prosecution significantly reduce any opportunity for learning. The cases are typically dealt with 3 – 5 years after the fatality, and they are argued on a very narrow range of facts (referred to as “particulars“), if they are argued at all. Most occupational safety and health prosecutions are dealt with by way of a guilty plea, often using an agreed statement of facts. There is no detailed analysis or discussion about the roles of different individuals, corporate culture, corporate attitude and so on.

In summary, the problems with using criminal prosecution as a tool in occupational safety and health management is:

1. There is no evidence it will produce safer outcomes.

2. It unfairly and disproportionately targets small business.

3. It diminishes, if not completely removes, all reasonable opportunities for learning from the incident.

4. It excludes the families of victims.

5. It is a tool that can be used to avoid genuine executive liability.

What could an alternative look like?

Consistent with the objectives of occupational safety legislation to provide safe workplaces, an alternative model would focus on learning lessons from incidents and sharing them in as fulsome and timely manner as possible. At the same time, senior executives should be accountable to explain how their organisations allowed incidents to occur. All of this can occur with the full engagement and participation of the families of people who were killed in workplace accidents.

This model would not ignore the public’s need to see punishment for clear and egregious breaches of workplace safety, but this would not be the primary focus. Having gone through an inquiry and publication process there would still be an option to refer the matter to the relevant prosecuting authority for prosecution under new provisions in the local criminal code.

What might a genuinely different response to workplace accidents look like? And, starting with the end in mind, what could be the public response to workplace accidents that might help improve workplace safety?

While I think prosecutions and penalties have a minimal contribution to make to improving safety outcomes in workplaces, I recognise there are cases where the full weight of public outrage needs to be impressed upon recalcitrant employers and individuals. But I think we can take the prosecution and penalties out of health and safety legislation and move them into the criminal law proper.

The criminal law has shown itself perfectly capable of responding to workplace accidents, especially fatalities, and we have seen several convictions for manslaughter arising out of workplace accidents.

To my mind, the advantage of taking prosecutions and penalties out of health and safety legislation and moving them into the Criminal Codes is at least threefold.

First, it sends a message about the importance of health and safety legislation and that very serious breaches of health and safety obligations in the workplace will not be tolerated.

Second, it can free up the resources of health and safety regulators to allow them to focus on strategies of prevention and sharing lessons – to focus on improving safety not policing it.

Third, if we restrict a prosecution and penalty regime to only the most serious breaches of health and safety legislation it might help to create an atmosphere in the business community that is not scared of every little health and safety breach. It might generate a willingness to talk about health and safety more openly and honestly and share lessons and experience more readily.

But I’m not prepared to give business a free ride.

Business still needs to be held accountable for workplace safety, but that accountability should be focused in a way that contributes to workplace safety.

I would propose a system whereby workplace accidents are subject to a system of independent investigation, with the scope or size of the investigation determined by the nature of the incident. Not every incident would have to trigger such investigation, but we could easily identify levels or classes of incidents that should and included discretion with the health and safety regulator to require an investigation where they think it is warranted.

These investigations would have some important characteristics:

  • They would be paid for by the employer(s) involved in the incident.
  • They would require an examination of senior management in the context of due diligence.
  • They would have to be finalised within a mandated (short) period – months not years.
  • The findings and lessons for industry would have to be published.
  • The employers do not get a free ride – they have a financial accountability for the investigation, managers cannot hide behind the legal process and lessons become quickly and readily available.

There also needs to be a trade-off for this approach.

To ensure the best possible safety outcome from such an enquiry, I would propose that all the evidence in relation to the investigation is kept private as far as possible, and none of the evidence, nor the findings, nor anything arising from the investigation can be used against an employer or any other individual in any other legal proceedings whatsoever.

In addition, the investigation would have to make a finding about the level of cooperation by the various entities with the investigation, and cooperation with the investigation could be used as a mitigating factor in any subsequent criminal proceedings.

There is obviously a range of detail to be worked out in this approach, for example we would need to include penalty provisions for not cooperating with, or misleading, the investigation.

But in my view, on balance, this type of approach provides a truly safety focused outcome.

We would have workers compensation and other civil proceedings to compensate the victims of accidents.

We would have criminal proceedings to punish egregious breaches of health and safety.

We would have a dedicated safety process solely focused on improving safety outcomes which was not beholden to, or compromised by, any other legal process.

Or, we just keep doing what we’ve always done and hope for a different result – i.e. Industrial Manslaughter.

Further Reading:

Articles on Just Deserts punishment theory

Articles on prosecution and punishment for WHS offences

Previous Blog Posts:

The prosecution problem revisited

The prosecution problem

Industrial manslaughter in Western Australia: what is the issue we are trying to address

The prosecution problem revisited again

Real executive liability is dead and we want to cremate it

Please share our posts

  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Safety Legislation Tagged With: industrial manslaughter

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Wynand says

    September 20, 2022 at 10:38 PM

    Similar to the comment made by Ray Lane, I have a huge concern (stemming from a real case) that management will be able to sidestep the responsibility and the employee who actually made the mistake/error that caused the incident will be thrown under the bus. In the case I refer to, the investigation completely ignored the factors that caused the system error that lead to the opportunity for the accident. The person who made a paper error was prosecuted and management got off. How would a threat of industrial manslaughter protect the worker from the overzealous and ineffective paper systems that created the culture and atmosphere that makes the workplace unsafe? I believe it will only add to the distress of workers in the workplace, with the consequence of making the workplace less safe.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      September 21, 2022 at 6:10 AM

      yes, we already have laws and punishment for serious offences by the real guilty parties. It can only lead to a desire to protect yourself rather than others

      Reply
  2. Ray Lane says

    September 19, 2022 at 8:54 AM

    Agreed, Greg. The industrial manslaughter provisions move the safety paradigm further away from thoughtfully improving risk management but towards avoiding prosecution. This manifests in increased paperwork that attempts to shift responsibility downwards towards the line supervisor, the subcontractor and the worker. Of course, none of this false comfort counts for much when the matter goes to court. But it promotes the opportunity to lock away records through legal professional privilege – to protect a potential defendant – and prevent a timely understanding of the who, what, when, why and how. SMEs without a corporate lawyer to shield them become the low hanging fruit for an easy prosecution and conviction. None of this gets information out there to improve systems and processes in a timely way when defence counsel has a clear duty to protect its defendant from the consequences of a conviction for manslaughter.

    Reply
  3. Rob long says

    September 18, 2022 at 7:07 AM

    What a strange industry that does so much that offers no effective outcomes for the health, safety and well being of persons. Indeed, it is bizarre that so much done in the name of zero and bbs actually harms people. Even more fascination when criticism of much nonsense is named the critic is demonised as anti-safety.
    How professional.

    Reply
    • Admin says

      September 18, 2022 at 9:41 AM

      Yes, I was recently asked why I have nothing postive to say about Safety. I wonder why………? The postive things being done for safety generally have nothing to do with safety.

      Reply
      • Rob Long says

        September 18, 2022 at 12:15 PM

        There is so much that we present as positive, all free, all downloadable, all constructive, all doable, all practiced that works. They don’t want to see any of that.
        For every thing that is deconstructed there is always on offer something reconstructed that privileges persons, health and safety.
        If you don’t want to see it, it’s not there.

        Reply

Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search and Discover More on this Site

Never miss a post - Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,499 other subscribers

RECOMMENDED READING

viral post – iso 45003 and what it cannot do

Introduction to SPOR – FREE!!

Psychosocial Safety and Mental Health Series

A Leadership Worldview for Psychosocial Safety

Psychosocial Safety, Following-Leading in Risk

Not Just Another ‘Hazard’

Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?

How to Be Oriented Towards Psychosocial and Mental Health in Safety

ISO 45003 and What it Cannot Do

The KISS of Death in Safety

Behavioural Safety is NOT a Foundation for Tackling Psychosocial and Mental Health

The Worst Approach to Psychosocial Problems is an Attitude of ‘Fixing’

The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health

More Posts from this Category

NEW! Free Download

Please take our 2 minute zero survey

Recent Comments

  • Rob Long on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • simon p cassin on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • simon p cassin on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • Rob long on How to Be Oriented Towards Psychosocial and Mental Health in Safety
  • Rob Long on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • Rob Long on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • Matt Thorne on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • simon p cassin on Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • Hurak Learning on How to Be Oriented Towards Psychosocial and Mental Health in Safety
  • Rob Long on An Advanced Understanding of Culture – A Video
  • Paul Gentles on An Advanced Understanding of Culture – A Video
  • Brent Charlton on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Rob Long on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Brian Edwin Darlington on The KISS of Death in Safety
  • Brian on The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Jaise on The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Rob Long on Posture Myths and Holistic Ergonomics
  • Linda McKendry on Posture Myths and Holistic Ergonomics
  • Rob long on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • Matt Thorne on Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)

FREE eBOOK DOWNLOADS

Footer

VIRAL POST – The Risk Matrix Myth

Top Posts & Pages. Sad that most are so dumb but this is what safety luves

  • 500 OF THE BEST AND WORST WORKPLACE HEALTH and SAFETY SLOGANS 2023
  • Road Safety Slogans 2023
  • A Leadership Worldview for Psychosocial Safety
  • Free Safety Moments and Toolbox Talk Examples, Tips and Resources
  • Proving Safety
  • 15 Safety Precautions When Working With Electricity
  • NATIONAL SAFETY DAY/WEEK IN INDIA 2023
  • What Is Safety?
  • CATCHY and FUNNY SAFETY SLOGANS FOR THE WORKPLACE
  • FREE RISK ASSESSMENT FORMS, CHECKISTS, REGISTERS, TEMPLATES and APPS

Recent Posts

  • A Leadership Worldview for Psychosocial Safety
  • How to Do the Best Risk Assessment
  • Tensions and Faultiness in Risk
  • Psychosocial Safety, Following-Leading in Risk
  • Free Program on Due Diligence
  • Not Just Another ‘Hazard’
  • Work-Life and Risk, Feminine Perspectives
  • Psychosocial Safety, Is it possible to make it culturally normal?
  • How to Be Oriented Towards Psychosocial and Mental Health in Safety
  • Free Download – Real Risk – New Book by Dr Robert Long
  • Proving Safety
  • ISO 45003 and What it Cannot Do
  • Harming People in the Name of Good
  • An Advanced Understanding of Culture – A Video
  • Risk and Safety Maturity
  • The KISS of Death in Safety
  • SPoR, Metanoia and a Podcast on Change with Nippin Anand
  • Behavioural Safety is NOT a Foundation for Tackling Psychosocial and Mental Health
  • The Worst Approach to Psychosocial Problems is an Attitude of ‘Fixing’
  • SPoR Comes to Vienna June 2023
  • The Language of ‘Hazards’ and Psychosocial, Mental Health
  • Welcome to the Nightmare, Safety Creates its Own Minefield (as usual)
  • The Visionary Imagination – Louisa Lawson
  • Heaven ‘n Hell and the Safety Religion
  • Confirmity in Conformity
  • Numerology and Psychic Numbing
  • Thinking of Mortality
  • Safety is the Wrong Anchor
  • Foresight Blindness, Hindsight Bias and Risk
  • Getting the Balance Right in Tackling Risk
  • What is SPoR?
  • How Bias Inhibits Learning in Safety
  • Afraid to Let Go of What Doesn’t Work in Safety
  • When You Don’t Know What to do in Safety, Have Another Blitz!!!
  • Gloves and Glasses Compliance
  • A Case of Desensitisation – What Would You Do?
  • How to Leave the Safety Industry
  • The Mythic Symbology of Safety
  • Dark Waters, The True Story of DuPont and Zero
  • 400,000 Free Downloads
  • Am I stupid? I didn’t think of that…
  • Don’t Look Now Safety, Your Metaphor is Showing
  • Ratio Delusions and Heinrich’s Hoax
  • To Err is Human, You Better Believe It
  • Culture as a Wicked Problem, for Safety
  • Safety Leadership Training
  • Cultural Orientation in Risk
  • The Stanford Experiment and The Social Psychology of Risk
  • Objectivity, Audits and Attribution When Calculating Risk
  • Records of safety activities: evidence of safety or non-compliance?

VIRAL POST!!! HOW TO QUIT THE SAFETY INDUSTRY

FEATURED POSTS

There is Nothing more Imaginative We can Do in Safety

The Challenge of the Consciousness Taboo

Challenges and Opportunities for Learning in a Crisis

Towards Dumb

Gesture in Risk Matters

The Last Thing is, Don’t Start with Safety

Making the World fit the Safety Worldview

Safety in Design as if Humans Matter

Tackling Risk, A Field Guide to Risk and Learning

Managing the Unexpected

Safety is NOT a Choice

WHS Research Symposium 2019

I’m Concerned That We Can’t See The Safety Forest For The Safety Trees

Human Dymensions Feb17 Newsletter and Competition

Is there “Common Sense” in safety?

Safety For the Common Good

Understanding Risk

Freedom in Necessity

I was just trying to Help

There’s a Hole in Your Investigation.

Non-Conscious Safety

Just distract you!

SEEK Investigations Workshop

non-Leadership in Risk

Clarity Enabled

Talking Risk Video–The Unconscious In Communication

What Does Your Risk and Safety Icon Say?

The Risk Aversion Delusion

Nothing is Learned Through Brutalism

Hind-sight, Risk Savvy and the Unexpected

Overcoming Safety Indoctrination

Safety and Risk Leadership Master Class

Safety Myopia

Risk Leadership

Fooled by Certainty

Just Tell Your Mind to Stop It

Dumbs for Safety

By What Measure? Safety?

Perth and London SPoR Workshops

Safety and The Sunk Cost Fallacy

More Posts from this Category

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address and join other discerning risk and safety people who receive notifications of new posts by email

Join 7,499 other subscribers

How we pay for the high cost of running of this site – try it for free on your site

WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY?

What is Psychological Safety at Work?


WHAT IS PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY