Would these cases be a good example to reflect the points that this author makes.
I am no expert, but as a lay person with only self researched knowledge of this complicated area I find this article affirms what I have discovered in my learning.
As a family member of an individual who has no opportunity to ask the questions because he gave his life for his mistake, what is the point of the current penalty system?
Worksafe Investigators and legal representatives worked extremely hard to establish and argue these 2 cases, only to \’downgrade\’ their impact to establish an admission of guilt.
This is exactly the impression the family has recieved from the series of events surrounding this case. Are we misguided to think and feel this?

What circumstances constitute Gross negligence if these do not?
Can anyone answer that question?

Love your work Kevin Jones.

There\’s a problem with discussing actual penalties vs the permitted maximum. It assumes that the permitted maximum punishment, if and when applied, will result in a change for the better. However the track record of one major NSW construction employer, a repeat offender with 6 dead men on its corporate conscience (such as it is) belies this argument. Other examples such as a notorious large employer in the Latrobe Valley come to mind.

Further, the legal techniques that obfuscate apply equally well to road trauma. \”M\’lud, my client has references from his peers and respected citizens and makes a valuable contribution to the community; my client has no record of offences even with the huge numbers of speed cameras and traffic police on the roads; this was clearly an extraordinary set of circumstances that simply could not be foreseen; my client has changed as a result of having their eyes opened by these tragic events which, although occuring quite some time ago, are still very real to my client…\”

OHS is not a special case. In Western law, first offenders before the Courts, whether corporate or individual citizens, generally are not treated as recidivists.