Industrial Manslaughter in the ACT: Dual WHS Act and Crimes Act Pathways

What it is

The Australian Capital Territory is the only Australian jurisdiction that operates two parallel industrial manslaughter offences. Section 34C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) is the WHS Act pathway, and section 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is the general criminal law pathway.

Both offences apply to workplace deaths. Prosecutors choose the appropriate offence based on the facts, evidence and desired penalty framework.

Section 34C WHS Act (regulatory pathway)

Section 34C(1) applies where a PCBU or senior officer engages in conduct that constitutes a failure to comply with a health and safety duty and that conduct causes the death of a worker or another person. The offence requires negligence in the conduct.

Penalties: individual up to 20 years imprisonment; body corporate up to $16.5 million.

WorkSafe ACT within Access Canberra prosecutes section 34C matters through the Director of Public Prosecutions. The WHS Act pathway is preferred where the death arose from a specific WHS duty breach with clear regulatory context.

Section 15 Crimes Act (criminal law pathway)

Section 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is the general criminal industrial manslaughter offence. It applies to workplace deaths where the accused's conduct caused the death and was negligent.

Section 15 does not require the WHS Act framework analysis. It operates under general criminal law principles including the ACT common law causation test and the general criminal negligence standard.

Penalties: individual up to 20 years imprisonment. Section 15 does not have body corporate penalties equivalent to section 34C.

The Crimes Act pathway is preferred where the death arose from conduct that does not neatly fit within a specific WHS duty framework or where prosecutors want to emphasise the criminal law dimension.

Choice of pathway

ACT prosecutors have discretion between the two pathways. In practice:

• section 34C is used for clear WHS Act duty breach cases with corporate liability
• section 15 is used for cases involving individual criminal culpability without a clear regulatory framework

Both offences can be prosecuted in the same case for the same underlying conduct.

Officer accountability

Both offences target senior officers as well as PCBUs (section 34C) or the general Crimes Act framework for individuals (section 15). Directors of ACT construction companies face parallel exposure to both offences.

No prosecutions to date under section 34C

As at July 2026, there have been no section 34C prosecutions in the ACT. The dual framework and Access Canberra's integrated compliance approach may result in prosecutions being framed under the WHS Act, Crimes Act or both depending on case specifics.

Interaction with COL Act licensing

Section 34C or section 15 convictions trigger Construction Occupations Registrar disciplinary action under Part 5 of the COL Act 2004 (ACT). Automatic disqualification applies for the imprisonment period.

Property Developers Act 2024 interaction

Section 34C or section 15 convictions of a developer or developer director interact with Property Developers Act 2024 licensing consequences for class 2 residential apartment projects.

How the ACT compares

The ACT's dual framework is unique in Australia. Every other jurisdiction runs either a WHS Act offence (all model WHS states) or an OHS Act offence (Victoria). The ACT chose to preserve the general criminal law pathway alongside the WHS Act pathway to give prosecutors flexibility.

Penalty scale: ACT $16.5 million body corporate is mid-lower range in Australia. NSW/QLD $20m top the scale. VIC $19.8m. SA and TAS $18m each. NT $15.5m. WA $10m (lowest).