One year ago, on 19 October 2023, the Melbourne Magistrates' Court fined Court Services Victoria $379,157 for failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace at the Coroners Court of Victoria. CSV was also ordered to pay $13,863 in costs. The independent statutory body, which administers Victoria's court system, had pleaded guilty to a single charge under section 21(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic).

This prosecution remains the most significant psychosocial hazard conviction in Australia. It warrants revisiting — not because the facts are new, but because the practical lessons have direct implications for every employer now managing psychosocial risk under tightening regulatory frameworks.

The facts

From at least December 2015 to September 2018, workers at the Coroners Court of Victoria were exposed to multiple psychosocial hazards: exposure to traumatic materials, role conflict, high workloads and excessive work demands, poor workplace relationships, and inappropriate workplace behaviours. During this period, workers made numerous complaints to management, including allegations of bullying, favouritism, cronyism, verbal abuse, derogatory comments, intimidation, invasions of privacy, and perceived threats to future career progression. Many workers reported feelings of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear and humiliation, and took extended periods of leave.

In September 2018, Jessica Wilby, the Court's principal in-house solicitor, died by suicide. Court Services Victoria acknowledged the devastating impact of her death on her partner, family, loved ones and colleagues. In its public response to the sentence, CSV expressed its deepest sympathy and stated that Jessica Wilby's loss continues to drive the organisation to build a culture where employees feel free to speak up.

WorkSafe Victoria charged CSV in 2021 with one count of failing to provide or maintain a workplace that was safe and without risks to health. At trial in September 2023, CSV pleaded guilty.

What the court found

The court found that CSV's failings were at the highest end. Magistrate Glenn Walsh indicated that, but for CSV's guilty plea, a fine of $700,000 would have been imposed.

The critical factual finding was that CSV had failed to conduct any adequate process to identify risks to the psychological health of employees at the Coroners Court. There was no evidence of a systematic hazard identification process. No documented risk assessment. No structured control measures. No evidence of adequate consultation with workers about the psychosocial risks they faced.

The court also found that CSV had been on notice. A 2015 staff survey and internal emails had revealed that the workplace was toxic, including that there was a risk of suicide. Despite these warnings, CSV did not take adequate steps to identify or assess the psychosocial risks over the three-year period that followed.

Why the prosecution succeeded

The prosecution did not succeed because CSV's systems were imperfect, or because a single intervention failed, or because risk management was attempted but fell short. It succeeded because there was no system.

CSV admitted it had not conducted any adequate process to identify psychosocial risks. It had not conducted any adequate risk assessment of the risks to psychological health. There was no documented evidence of a structured approach to managing the hazards that were plainly present and repeatedly reported.

This is an important distinction. An employer that has identified hazards, assessed risks, implemented controls, consulted workers, and documented the process — but where a worker is nonetheless harmed — is in a fundamentally different position from an employer that has done none of these things. The first employer can demonstrate that it took reasonably practicable steps. The second cannot.

King and Wood Mallesons notes that this case serves as a warning to employers to review their existing psychosocial hazard and risk management models. Importantly, employers must adequately identify psychosocial as well as physical hazards in the workplace and conduct appropriate risk assessments to protect the psychological health and mental wellbeing of workers.

The practical lessons

The CSV prosecution establishes several practical points for employers.

First, having policies is not enough. CSV likely had documentation about workplace wellbeing. What it lacked was any systematic process to identify hazards, assess risks, and implement controls. A policy that exists on paper but is not supported by a functioning risk management system does not demonstrate compliance.

Second, repeated complaints are evidence of known hazards. When workers report bullying, excessive workload, poor relationships or exposure to traumatic material, these are reports of psychosocial hazards. An employer that receives these reports and does not investigate, assess and respond through a structured process is failing to identify known hazards.

Third, the hierarchy of controls applies. WorkSafe Victoria's guidance following the case emphasises that employers should implement systems for workforce planning and workload management, develop leadership capability through coaching and training, provide appropriate reporting and response procedures, and seek and act on feedback from workers during organisational change. These are systemic controls, not individual interventions.

Fourth, regulators will pursue psychosocial failures with the same seriousness as physical safety breaches. WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Narelle Beer stated that it is an employer's legal duty to do everything they possibly can to support their workers to thrive in their roles and ensure they leave work each day no worse than how they arrived.

The precedent

The CSV prosecution demonstrates that the regulatory framework for psychosocial hazards has enforcement teeth. Before this case, there was a perception that psychosocial matters were too subjective, too complex, or too difficult to prosecute. This case showed that they are not — particularly where the employer has failed to implement any systematic process at all.

For employers across Australia, the message is clear. Regulators expect documented, implemented systems for psychosocial risk management. The absence of such a system is itself the breach. Organisations that can demonstrate they have identified hazards, assessed risks, implemented controls, consulted workers, and reviewed the effectiveness of those controls are better positioned to defend regulatory action. Organisations that cannot demonstrate these things face the same exposure CSV faced.

For the full state-by-state breakdown of psychosocial compliance requirements, see the compliance-by-state collection.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on psychosocial compliance in Australian workplaces. It does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. Case references are sourced from WorkSafe Victoria, King and Wood Mallesons, Gilchrist Connell, Court Services Victoria and media reporting and are current as of the date of publication.

If you or someone you know is experiencing distress, support is available. Contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.