It should be a combination - the Police can prosecute now when a senior person personally does something constituting manslaughter or criminal nuisance, and WorkSafe can prosecute officers if due diligence isn't happening, and also sometimes prosecute them as workers too if they are involved in dangerous acts or omissions.

The current chatter about amending the manslaughter law is a solution looking for a problem. I don't believe companies will change their behaviour just because a corporate manslaughter law is enacted - one fine is as bad as another. If the answer is "we'll make the penalties bigger', then just do that under the existing Health and Safety at Work Act. It's not an answer though, as we already see businesses claim impecuniosity as a reason to avoid a large fine, and that trend will just continue.

If the idea is to hold individuals accountable for manslaughter after a corporate failure, then we risk sending a message that people shouldn't agree to be officers in the first place, and also risk corporate paralysis where work is never finished because everyone spends most of the day filling out paperwork to make things appear safer, even if they're not actually safer.

Overseas, experience so far suggests that this type of law is used against SME businesses far more than listed companies and multi-nationals. Is that really what proponents of change want?

Grant

The most unfortunate part of our H&S Law is making offenders guilty until they prove their innocence. Too often their insurance companies advise them to plead guilty because such a move is less expensive. Only Worksafe's investigations are considered in the Courts; nothing gets discussed, picked apart, contested. Nothing much is learned except everyone is progressively more afraid and compliance (rather than safety) oriented. As you write Grant #SafetylawyerNZ - corporate paralysis.

I believe it should be a combination of, but leaning more to use of HSW Act. I would have liked to see a couple more cases where officers have been held to account. My experience has been until Senior Management realise there is a REAL possibility of being held to account, then they still sit back and pay little notice to safety. I believe though due diligence only goes so far and I don't think Criminal/Policy convictions will be positive either.

SafetylawyerNZ - keen to get your thoughts as to why the law avoids prosecuting large companies, if they are less likely to be able to avoid the impecuniosity claim?
Also keen to get your view, and those of others, as to whether recent WorkSafe prosecutions are actually dealing with the impecuniosity issue by amending the size of the penalty to 'hurt' the organisation financially, without bankrupting them. Or am I wrong with that line of thinking?