The Sentencing of OHS Offences in Victoria

admin • March 11, 2025

The Sentencing Advisory Council (SAC) has recently reviewed the sentencing of breaches of the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. Through their review, they discovered that there is a need to change sentencing practices in Victoria. They found that punishments were often not appropriate and not in line with community expectations, and that sentencing orders such as adverse publicity orders and health and safety orders are being underutilised. In addition, many fines are going unpaid.


Following a period of review and consultation, the SAC has recently published its’ report into the sentencing of OHS offences in Victoria.


The SAC have made 12 recommendations, divided into 3 categories:


1.     Victim related recommendations

– relating to victim impact statements and restorative justice.

2.     Sentencing Practices

– relating to enforceable undertakings/ health and safety orders, adverse publicity orders, increasing penalties for OHS breaches and the inclusion of Sentencing Guidelines in the OHS Act.

3.     Fine Payment

– relating to fines being paid to WorkSafe, reviews of fines outstanding, declared director notices and successor liability.


The recommendation to introduce Sentencing Guidelines would follow the example of the UK, where they already exist. However, Victoria will represent a world first if these guidelines are introduced as recommended – in legislation.


If implemented, this suite of changes could lead to much improved Occupational Health and Safety outcomes for Victorian workplaces.


Interested in finding out more? Take a look at: Sentencing Advisory Council Recommends Major Changes to Sentencing of Workplace Safety Offences | Sentencing Council

Education: The Key to Workplace Safety

By admin • June 24, 2025
At BeSafe Victoria, we live, eat and breathe safety education. Why? Because we believe it is the key to workplace safety. We see and hear the on-the-ground OHS stories from our participants on a daily basis, both during training and while providing follow-up support. It is remarkable to see the transformation that occurs during a training course, as participants grow their safety knowledge and become empowered to influence their own safety and that of their workplace. In regional Victoria, it is not uncommon for OHS Literacy to be very low. This is not in all workplaces, but certainly our experience shows that many workers have received very little or no training in OHS. By gaining an understanding of OHS, we can empower individuals to keep themselves safe. This includes in understanding their rights, recognising hazards, mitigating risks and knowing when to say no to unsafe work. Training an individual also means that they can bring this new knowledge to their workplace, leading to positive improvements in safety outcomes for their colleagues. Safety training has broader implications too – it can inspire conversations with family and friends, creating a ‘ripple effect’ of improved safety awareness in the community. We often see participants who deeply care about safety and have put their hand up to become a Health and Safety Representative (HSR) in their workplace. These participants come in with the drive and walk out with the tools and the passion they need to make a really tangible difference in their workplace. We know of many stories of trained HSR’s who go on to transform the safety of their workplaces. Whether we are duty holders, supervisors, HSR’s, or employees – we all have a role to play in the safety of our workplace – and with the right knowledge, we can make a positive contribution.  What truly underpins a safe work environment? The answer lies in education .

OHS Prosecution on Pure Risk

By admin • June 17, 2025
The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 is primarily a risk-based law. That is, it requires the prevention of harm. The objects of the Act require that health and safety be secured and that risks to health and safety be eliminated at the source, with the highest level of protection against risks being provided. The employer is legally required to eliminate (as far as reasonably practicable) any risk to health and safety. It follows that the majority of offences under the Act are indeed risk-based offences. This means that a prosecution can occur whether or not the risk has resulted in death or injury. It is enough to have simply exposed a person to the risk of harm. The argument for this is that the OHS Act aims to prevent injury, disease and death at work. So why do we see many prosecutions occurring after the harm has in fact materialised into an injury or death? Perhaps it is due to a public expectation that these horrific incidents should result in some punishment of those responsible? Perhaps it is that the ultimate evidence of the safety failure is now present – providing a compelling argument as to the egregious nature of the risk that was posed by the breach? Perhaps there is motivation to provide general deterrence as a result of these tragic events? It is important to note that the death or injury does not form part of the offence in these prosecutions, rather it forms part of the evidence. But, we do see pure risk prosecutions. The regulator can and does charge on the basis of risk only, before the safety failure has resulted in harm to anyone. This is the ultimate outcome – to prevent . Prosecuting on the basis of risk may be for the purpose of primary prevention, or as the ultimate escalation in a hierarchy of sanctions. It may serve as specific deterrence, to effect change in an individual’s or company’s behaviour. General deterrence is often seen as very important – reinforcing to all duty holders that they are required by law to take a pro-active approach to safety. Here are a few examples of cases of pure-risk prosecutions: $7.5K FINE IN PURE RISK FALLS CASE - OHS Reps $25K FINE IN AHWAZ ROOFING PURE RISK CASE - OHS Reps CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FINED $12K IN ‘PURE RISK’ PROSECUTION - OHS Reps The following Melbourne Law School presentation also makes for some interesting reading on this topic: CELRL-Seminar-21-May.pdf Proceeding to prosecution on the basis of risk represents an alignment between prosecution strategies and the principles of the OHS Act . Certainly, it serves as a reminder that duty holders have a legal requirement to provide the highest level of protection and to prevent harm in the workplace.