OHS Learnings from Judge Peter Rozen

admin • May 6, 2025

Judge Peter Rozen is currently a Judge in the County Court of Victoria where he was appointed in 2022. His name is well known, due to his long history as an expert in Occupational Health and Safety law.  Judge Rozen has been involved in a number of high-profile reviews and inquiries, and he co-authored a textbook on the subject: ‘Health and Safety Law in Victoria’.


Recently, Judge Rozen presided over the case of DPP vs Energy Australia Yallourn Pty Ltd, where he gave his sentencing remarks on 27th March 2025. This case was a pure risk prosecution relating to a fire at the power plant, which resulted in the conviction of Energy Australia for breaching section 21 of the OHS Act.


The County Court broadcast the sentencing remarks on YouTube: Sentence of DPP v Energy Australia Yallourn Pty Ltd before Judge Rozen – 27 March 2025 in what was a helpful move to make access to his commentary more accessible to those wanting to learn from OHS rulings.


Judge Rozen took the opportunity to explain the way in which employers must engage in risk assessment including the consideration of the likelihood of the event occurring and its’ potential consequence.


He also took the time to explain that employers must provide the highest level of protection against risks to health and safety and that they must be proactive in their duty to provide a safe workplace, as well as to monitor conditions and to engage suitably qualified persons in relation to OHS. Notably, he highlighted the need for meaningful consultation and the fact that employees are entitled to be represented (by and HSR).


Rozen went on to delve into the concept to ‘reasonably practicable’ and described how the ‘more ‘reasonably practicable’ an identified risk control measure was, all else being equal, the more egregious will be the failure to have implemented it’.


Judge Rozen’s closing remarks were a strong reminder to duty holders as to their legislated responsibilities under the Law:

‘It has been stated by the Court of Appeal on more than one occasion that employers are required by the Act to take an active, imaginative and flexible approach to the safety of those who may be affected by their undertakings. An employer must actively identify risks to health and safety and take all steps that are reasonably practicable to obviate those risks. Employers are not allowed under the law to take a passive approach to safety only improving safety procedures after an incident... fines in OHS cases must draw attention to the importance of workplace safety, and send a message to employers that failure to eliminate or mitigate safety risks will attract significant punishment.'


The full transcript is available at: sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-energy-australia-yallourn.pdf

And the video can be viewed at: Sentence of DPP v Energy Australia Yallourn Pty Ltd before Judge Rozen – 27 March 2025


Any HSR, employer or person interested in OHS would benefit from listening to the comments of Judge Rozen. In particular, his educational comments which I have summarised are found at around the 11.30 mark.

By admin February 2, 2026
The 9 th February 2014 was the day that The Hazelwood mine caught fire. It was during a period of extreme fire danger that a bushfire started nearby and sent embers into the open cut coal mine. The fire burnt out of control for 45 days and it took another 72 days for the fire to be put out. The impact on the community and on the workers who helped to fight the fire was horrific. The fire was a large scale environmental and health disaster, with ongoing ramifications for those in the vicinity. It would later become the subject of an inquiry, multiple prosecutions and has been the subject of two books by Tom Doig which make very interesting reading. From an OHS perspective, this event makes an interesting case study. The fire was preventable, and the safety failures resulted in workers being exposed to hazardous conditions, with long term effects. Firefighters and mine personnel faced extreme occupational hazards while responding to the event. These included toxic smoke inhalation, fatigue from prolonged shifts, extreme heat exposure and direct contact with burning coal and ash. Also impacted were volunteers and emergency personnel, as well as members of the public. Inadequate PPE, lack of training and inadequate water infrastructure all added to the hazardous conditions. The physical and psychological impacts continue to this day. It was found that there had been systemic failures in Occupational Health and Safety at the site. The mine operator (Hazelwood Power company, co-owned by Engie and Mitsui & Co) was found to have failed to: Adequately assess the risk of fire in the mine, as a result of external sources such as bushfires Adequately maintain vegetation buffers Have sufficient firefighting water infrastructure Have sufficient and adequately skilled staff on site to respond to fire Have an updated fire mitigation plan and to activate it during periods of extreme fire danger In the words of Colin Radford, WorkSafe CEO: "This was an entirely foreseeable event that has led to significant adverse health impacts” The adverse health impacts were felt by workers and by the broader community. The massive smoke plumes which blanketed Morwell and the Latrobe valley for a prolonged period resulted in many suffering acute and chronic health effects. The Hazelwood mine fire exposed issues with crisis management, safety and health governance and emergency response. The operator of the mine, Hazlewood Power Corporation Pty Ltd was eventually prosecuted by WorkSafe and found guilty and fined. The penalty was $1.56 million for breaching sections 21 and 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Hazelwood Pacific Pty Ltd, Australian Power Partners B.V, Hazelwood Churchill Pty Ltd and National Power Australia were found guilty of breaching the Environment Protection Act. They each were fined $95,000 for offences relating to pollution, totalling $380,000. There continues to be ongoing environmental concerns regarding the remaining mine pit. The owner of the mine, French owned company Engie, is required to rehabilitate the site of the now closed open-cut pit. The process for determining the appropriate 'rehabilitation' is still ongoing, with concerns regarding the use of the Latrobe River water for this purpose, the instability of the pit and potential toxicity of the water. The hazards associated with this mine continue to cause concern. For those interested in finding out more about the Hazelwood Mine disaster, Tom Doig’s books are highly recommended reading: Hazelwood by Tom Doig - Penguin Books Australia The Coal Face: Penguin Special by Tom Doig - Penguin Books Australia For more information relating to the ongoing Hazelwood concerns, take a look at: Hazelwood Mine Rehabilitation – Update 2025 Hazelwood Rehabilitation Project
By admin January 27, 2026
Australia is a fire-prone country, and workplaces in many areas are at risk of being impacted by bushfires in some way. The effects of bushfires may include direct exposure to fire, as well as smoke exposure and psychological impacts. As with any workplace hazard, employers have a duty to manage and control the risk of injury. A bushfire risk assessment should therefore be undertaken. Through this process, employers should: Identify whether there is a potential bushfire hazard Assess the risk of bushfires affecting the health and safety of workers, including smoke exposure Identify appropriate control measures Review control measures to ensure they are effective and that no new hazards have been introduced Consultation with workers should occur at each stage of this process. When developing a bushfire risk assessment and policy, employers should consider the following: How will fire danger ratings be monitored throughout the bushfire season? How vulnerable is the workplace location? What actions will be taken on days of extreme or catastrophic fire danger? Are there workers who travel for work or spend significant time on the road? Are there workers who operate alone or in isolated locations? What emergency and evacuation plans are in place? Once a bushfire policy has been developed in consultation with workers, appropriate training must be provided. Employers are legally required to ensure workers receive the necessary information, instruction, and training to remain safe at work, including in relation to bushfire risks. For more information, take a look at: Working outside - Working near bushfires | Safe Work Australia