A Court of Appeals recently upheld that it is up to the Defendant NOT the Prosecution to prove that they took Reasonable Steps.
More importantly it is up the Defendant to prove what the Reasonable Steps required were, NOT the Prosecution.
This has a number of implications which will be discussed over forthcoming articles.
“…that the person should have or ought to have known” (WA Road Traffic (Vehicles) Act 2012).
Regardless of which State you operate in, there is a component of the respective acts Reasonable Steps defence, that requires you prove how you trained your people.
Now we open the Can of Worms- What is defensible training?
A number of companies, are exposing other Supply Chain partners, by undertaking token training.
For example, recently we came across a Supplier to a Client, who had been told to address their Load Restraint problems.
So the Supplier undertook 30 minutes of Load Restraint training, fully aware that almost none of their drivers had ever been trained in Load Restraint.
- Quick diversion, Most Transport Drivers are NOT trained in Load Restraint when they get their Transport Drivers license. Surprising as it is, the people you think are the experts in Load Restraint, the people you trust to load the vehicle correctly, actually don’t know.
A proper Load Restraint course for a Transport Driver is a one day course, so is 30 minutes provided by the Supplier Reasonable?
- BTW- For Light Vehicles, the Western Australian Road Transport Association now offers a half day accredited course, contact WARTA for more information
These questions continue to be raised, including a company that undertook online training only to find out that it was NOT relevant to their state. Secondly that the training FAILED to demonstrate to people how it applied to them in their roles?
Training is NOT about a piece of paper – Training is about giving people the knowledge and skills to do their job. In so doing, that knowledge reduces your RISK.
So how is your Training? Is it defensible?