Yes — employers can be prosecuted for failing to manage psychological injury, and now even the Commonwealth has been. In December 2025, the Department of Defence was convicted and fined $188,000 after a Royal Australian Air Force technician died by suicide while on duty — the first Commonwealth psychosocial conviction in Australian history.
This article discusses a workplace death by suicide. It does not include graphic detail. If you or someone you know needs support, Lifeline is available 24/7 on 13 11 14.
Key facts at a glance
- Defence was convicted and fined $188,000 in the NSW Local Court on 19 December 2025.
- First Commonwealth employer ever convicted for failing to manage psychosocial risks under federal WHS law.
- Guilty plea to a single charge under section 33, admitting a breach of its primary duty under section 19(1).
- Magistrate also made an adverse publicity order, requiring Defence to publicise the offence and penalty.
- Maximum available penalty was $500,000 (Category 3 offence); prosecuted by the Commonwealth DPP.
- Psychosocial duties are now enforceable in every Australian state and territory, as of 1 December 2025.
What did the Department of Defence do wrong?
Defence admitted it failed to take reasonably practicable steps to minimise psychosocial risk to a 34-year-old RAAF technician, who died by suicide while on duty at RAAF Base Williamtown, near Newcastle, on 28 July 2020. According to Comcare, the worker was placed on four separate “Work Plans” — a performance-management procedure — over six months. Supervisors never referred him for support, placed him on leave, or relieved the stress. The failure was specific: Defence had policies covering psychosocial risk, but had not trained the supervisors applying them.
Why is this conviction a national first?
Commonwealth WHS Regulations requiring duty holders to identify and manage psychosocial hazards have applied since April 2023, backed by the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024. Until now, no Commonwealth employer had been convicted under those duties. Comcare CEO Colin Radford explained why the prosecution succeeded: “The risks were obvious and known to Defence through existing policies and guidelines. These policies can only ever mitigate risk if they are applied and followed in practice, and if they are supported by training those responsible for implementing them.”
Can any employer be prosecuted for psychological injury?
Yes. This case is a Commonwealth first, not an isolated quirk. Psychosocial hazards — including poor support, low job control, and poorly managed performance processes — are listed hazards under Safe Work Australia’s model framework, and as of 1 December 2025 equivalent duties are enforceable nationwide. Regulators will prosecute where a known, foreseeable risk existed with no proportionate, trained response — private company or Commonwealth alike.
What is an adverse publicity order?
An adverse publicity order, available under section 236 of the WHS Act, can require a convicted employer to publish details of its offence, circumstances, and penalty at its own cost, as directed by the court — a reputational sanction layered on top of the fine. Its use against a Commonwealth department underlines how seriously the court treated the failure.
What does this mean for employers now?
The case draws a clear line between having a psychosocial risk policy and actually managing psychosocial risk. Documentation alone did not protect Defence — the gap was in equipping the people who put those policies into practice. Anyone running performance management, rostering, or return-to-work processes needs to recognise a psychosocial hazard when they see one and know when to escalate it.
Compliance takeaway: written policy is not a defence on its own. Regulators are now testing whether the people applying performance-management and support processes were actually trained to identify and respond to psychosocial risk — not just whether a policy document existed.
How does psychological first aid training help?
Accredited Psychological First Aid builds the frontline capability this case shows was missing: a supervisor, manager, or HR contact’s ability to recognise when someone is struggling, respond appropriately, and refer them to the right support before a situation escalates. FMS Training delivers it under the nationally recognised unit code PUARCV001, as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO 45189), with a Statement of Attainment — online, nationwide. It is not counselling, diagnosis or therapy; it is the recognise-and-refer capability regulators now expect employers to have in place.
Is accredited psychological first aid different from mental health first aid?
Both sit in the same broad category — frontline capability to recognise and respond to psychological distress — but they are not identical products. FMS Training’s course is delivered against the nationally recognised unit PUARCV001, assessed and issued as a Statement of Attainment by an RTO. Whichever program an organisation chooses, the lesson from the Defence case is the same: training needs to reach the people running performance-management processes, not sit filed alongside a policy document.
| Case detail | Fact |
|---|---|
| Employer | Department of Defence (Commonwealth) |
| Outcome | Convicted, fined $188,000, adverse publicity order made |
| Charge | Section 33 WHS Act (guilty plea), breach of primary duty under s19(1) |
| Prosecutor | Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions |
| Regulator | Comcare |
| Court | NSW Local Court, Magistrate Brett Thomas |
| Date decided | 19 December 2025 |
| Maximum available penalty | $500,000 (Category 3 offence) |
| National significance | First-ever Commonwealth conviction for failing to manage psychosocial risk |
What should employers do next?
This is a demand-side compliance question — who needs to be trained, not how to deliver frontline support. At minimum, that means anyone running performance-management, rostering, or return-to-work processes, since those are exactly the processes this case shows can become psychosocial hazards if mismanaged. Whether supervisors have formal, accredited training in recognising psychosocial risk — as distinct from having simply read a policy — is a reasonable starting point for any WHS due-diligence review. Organisations closing that gap can look at becoming an accredited psychological first aider, review exposure against psychosocial hazards at work, check legal requirements for managing psychosocial hazards, or train leaders with psychological first aid for managers.
Frequently asked questions
Can an employer be prosecuted for psychological injury?
Yes. Employers, including the Commonwealth, can be and are being convicted for failing to manage psychosocial risk. In December 2025 Defence was convicted and fined $188,000 — the first Commonwealth psychosocial conviction in Australia.
What happened in the Department of Defence case?
Defence pleaded guilty to breaching its primary duty under the Commonwealth WHS Act after a RAAF technician died by suicide on duty at RAAF Base Williamtown in 2020, following four Work Plans over six months without adequate support or trained supervisors.
Why was this conviction described as a national first?
It is the first time any Commonwealth employer has been convicted specifically for failing to manage psychosocial risks under federal WHS laws, despite psychosocial duties having applied in the Commonwealth jurisdiction since April 2023.
How much was the Department of Defence fined?
Defence was fined $188,000, against a maximum available penalty of $500,000 for the Category 3 offence it pleaded guilty to.
What is an adverse publicity order?
It is a court order, available under section 236 of the WHS Act, requiring a convicted employer to publicise the offence, its consequences and the penalty at its own cost, as an additional reputational sanction.
Are psychosocial duties enforceable everywhere in Australia?
Yes. As of 1 December 2025, psychosocial duties are enforceable in every Australian state and territory, in addition to the Commonwealth jurisdiction Defence was prosecuted under.
Is Psychological First Aid the same as counselling?
No. Psychological First Aid is a frontline recognise-and-refer skill, not counselling, diagnosis or therapy. FMS Training delivers it under the nationally recognised unit PUARCV001, issued as a Statement of Attainment.
How can my organisation reduce psychosocial risk after this case?
Review whether supervisors and managers running performance-management, rostering, or return-to-work processes have accredited training to recognise psychosocial hazards, not just access to a written policy — that training gap was the specific failing in the Defence case.
Build in-house capability now
Written policy without trained people is no longer a safe position for any employer. FMS Training (RTO 45189, female-owned, 4.9★ from 1,300+ reviews) delivers nationally recognised Psychological First Aid (PUARCV001) online, nationwide, leading to a Statement of Attainment. Enquire today to book your supervisors and managers into accredited training.