Publications

The recent dismissal of three employees from Western Australia’s state-owned electricity provider, Western Power, has sparked a broader discussion about character references, workplace culture, and community expectations in cases involving serious criminal offending. While character references have long been a recognised part of the sentencing process, the Western Power case highlights the tensions that can arise when personal support for an offender conflicts with an employer’s commitment to maintaining a safe and respectful workplace.

The Background

The controversy arose following the sentencing to five years’ imprisonment of former Western Power manager Jeffrey David Spinner, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a female colleague during a work trip in 2024. The court heard that the victim was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. During sentencing, the court received a number of positive character references for Spinner from colleagues, family members and others. The sentencing judge observed that the references suggested the offending was “out of character” and considered the evidence of prior good character as part of the sentencing exercise.

Following public reporting of the case, it emerged that several of the referees were current Western Power employees. The utility company commenced an investigation and ultimately terminated the employment of three staff members who had provided favourable references. Western Power stated that the investigation found the conduct of providing these favourable references to be inconsistent with its values, its Code of Conduct and the standards expected of its employees. The organisation also announced an independent cultural review.

The Purpose of Character References

Character references have long been used to assist courts in understanding an offender’s personal circumstances, reputation and prospects of rehabilitation. However, their use has become increasingly controversial, particularly in serious sexual offence matters, with critics arguing that individuals with strong professional or social networks may appear to receive more favourable treatment.

Workplace Obligations and Community Expectations

The Western Power response demonstrates that employees may face disciplinary consequences for engaging in lawful activities where an employer concludes that the conduct is inconsistent with its Code of Conduct, values or cultural expectations. . An employee may genuinely believe that providing a character reference to a fellow employee is an act of fairness or personal loyalty. Yet an employer may view the same conduct through the lens of workplace culture, psychological safety and employee wellbeing.

Many organisations place significant emphasis on creating safe and respectful workplaces. As a result, support expressed for a colleague convicted of a serious sexual offence may be viewed differently by co-workers, victims and the broader community than it might have been previously.

The challenge for employers is balancing competing considerations. On one hand, employees retain personal rights and may wish to participate in court processes. On the other hand, organisations have obligations to foster trust and confidence among their workforces. When conduct outside the workplace appears inconsistent with an employer’s values or has the potential to damage workplace relationships, employee confidence or organisational reputation, disciplinary action may become a possibility.

Consequences may also arise outside the employment relationship itself. Community expectations and public scrutiny can sometimes create significant reputational and political consequences for those who choose to provide support for offenders convicted of serious crimes.

Earlier this year, Wyndham City Mayor Preet Singh faced substantial public and political criticism after providing a character reference for a man later convicted of grooming and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl. Following protests and a vote of no confidence, Singh resigned as mayor, later acknowledging that providing the reference had been poor judgement.

A Broader Legal and Policy Debate

The Western Power matter has reignited debate about the future role of character references in criminal sentencing. In response to community concerns, the West Australian Government announced plans to restrict the use of character references in criminal cases, expanding reforms that were already being considered for certain offence categories. The government indicated there was growing concern that individuals with professional status or strong personal networks could receive more favourable treatment through the character reference process.

This year NSW enacted legislation that will remove ‘good character’ as a mitigating factor in sentencing once commenced. At the time of writing, other Australian jurisdictions have not adopted equivalent reforms.

Whether such reforms are ultimately adopted remains to be seen, but the discussion reflects changing community attitudes towards accountability for serious offending, particularly sexual violence.

Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees

The Western Power case serves as a reminder that actions taken in a personal capacity can sometimes have professional consequences. Employees considering providing character references for colleagues involved in criminal proceedings should be mindful that their actions may be scrutinised not only by courts but also by employers, co-workers and the public.

For employers, the case highlights the importance of clear policies concerning workplace values, expected standards of conduct and the circumstances in which out-of-hours conduct may affect employment. Transparency and consistency in applying those standards are critical.

A key feature of the Western Power case was that the victim, offender and several referees were all employees of the same organisation. Had the references related to an offender with no connection to the workplace, the issue may have attracted far less scrutiny. This workplace nexus transformed what might otherwise have been a private act of support into a matter raising broader questions about organisational culture, victim confidence and employee safety.

Ultimately, the controversy demonstrates that character references sit at the intersection of law, ethics and workplace culture. While courts may continue to regard evidence of prior good character as relevant, organisations and the community increasingly expect that support for individuals convicted of serious offences be considered in light of broader questions of accountability, safety and respect.

Disclosure and important note: This article is based on our own legal research and thinking. Some of its content has been drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The authors have checked and approved this article, including the AI generated content, for publication.

This article was published on 11 November by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. (www.codea.com.au).