.png)
Adverse Publicity Orders - Developing feature of OHS sentencing?
In February 2025, the Sentencing Advisory Council released its review of OHS sentencing practices Victoria.
Among its recommendations was encouragement for the increased use of adverse publicity orders in appropriate cases
Why raise this now?
It has now been one year since that review was released.
Historically (according to the review)
- Nearly 1,200 OHS cases were reviewed over a 16-year period
- Over 90% of sentencing outcomes were fines
- Only one adverse publicity order was imposed in that period
This made adverse publicity orders one of the most under-utilised sentencing tools available. One year on, we are beginning to see examples emerge.
- A Commonwealth Defence entity convicted of WHS offences involving psychosocial risk management failures was ordered to publish details of the breach alongside the financial penalty (which we examined in more detail here: Legal First Conviction.)
- In March, an electrician fined for behaviour towards an apprentice was also required to publicise the offence, its consequences and the penalty imposed in two industry publications, including a national outlet.
They demonstrate that adverse publicity orders are being applied in practice, including in matters involving psychosocial risk.
What is an Adverse Publicity Order?
An adverse publicity order is a court-imposed requirement for an offender to publicly disclose details of their breach. The order may require publication of:
- The nature of the offence
- The circumstances surrounding it
- The harm caused
- The penalty imposed
- The corrective actions undertaken
The court determines:
- The content
- The format
- The timing
- The publication medium
This can include national or industry publications, website placement, workplace notices or other directed communication.
The messaging is not optional or self-framed. It is court-directed and this matters from a reputation standpoint.
Why encourage their use?
The Sentencing Advisory Council observed that fines dominate OHS sentencing outcomes
The report identified adverse publicity orders as under-utilised and encouraged their increased use to:
- Enhance deterrence
- Promote industry learning
- Reinforce community confidence
- Ensure accountability is visible
Skodel's partner, Anna Feringa noted:
“Part of effective deterrence is not determined solely by the size of a financial penalty, but by whether the consequence meaningfully influences organisational behaviour.”
An adverse publicity order introduces a reputational dimension to sentencing. For many organisations:
- Financial penalties are quantifiable and absorbed as operational risk
- Reputational consequences can influence worker confidence, client relationships and industry standing
- Trust, once affected, can take longer to restore
Because of this, it may be a stronger deterrent.
A practical consideration for boards and leaders
Within a year of the 2025 review, we have seen:
- A significant Defence matter involving psychosocial risk
- A separate March prosecution requiring publication in national industry media
For WHS and HR teams seeking stronger board sponsorship of psychosocial risk governance, this development may be helpful.
Adverse publicity orders move beyond financial exposure to:
“How would our governance look if it were publicly outlined?”
Psychosocial risk management requires more than policy settings. It requires:
- Clear ownership and sponsorship at executive level
- Active board oversight
- Evidence of monitoring and review
- Demonstrating response to emerging risk
If required to publicly articulate:
- The controls in place
- The oversight exercised
- The steps taken to prevent foreseeable harm
Would the narrative demonstrate leadership sponsorship, or reactive compliance?
As enforcement tools evolve, visible accountability becomes part of the risk landscape. Financial penalties can be quantified and absorbed. Perceptions of governance and culture, once formed, tend to influence trust more gradually and over a longer horizon.
.png)
.png)