A Chain of Neglect - Incentives, Omissions, and Tragic Outcomes

In my routine patrol of supermarkets back in 2020s, a pattern of unchecked disorder revealed itself at a shopping centre in the suburbs. An eight-year-old boy raced his bicycle through the indoor aisles, and foyer, weaving among shoppers with reckless abandon, a clear hazard in a space filled with the vulnerable, including elderly patrons navigating narrow paths and a slippery ramp. Spotting the risk, I stepped in, grasping the handlebars to halt the bike and instructing the child to dismount and exit. The boy responded with profanity, racial slurs, and threats, insisting no one could lay hands on him. Undeterred, I explained the rules, no riding inside, lest someone get hurt, and escorted him out amid defiant gestures.

Turning to the on-duty security officer, who had lounged against a bakery wall observing the scene without stirring, I questioned the inaction. The guard shrugged it off, claiming rules barred him from touching children. Reminded of legal obligations under the Criminal Code, provisions mandating intervention to prevent harm to self or others, especially for minors under a duty of care, the guard dismissed the point with vulgarity and walked away. The incident was reported to his management, but as often happens in systems where accountability diffuses, no corrective action followed.

Three weeks later, the foreseeable unfolded. The same boy, still unchecked, collided with a seventy three-year-old Greek woman inside the centre. She fell, striking her head and suffering a massive hematoma. She succumbed en route to the hospital. The two guards on shift that day, including the one previously confronted, were reportedly stunned. In the office aftermath, I pressed them on their role, how negligence had effectively sealed the woman's fate, a direct echo of the earlier warning ignored. Yet again, the response was deflection, management and colleagues to me to leave them be.

Six weeks on, tragedy compounded. The boy, now nine, was found hanged in Park swings, mere steps from the shops. Family claimed suicide, but inquiries uncovered a darker thread, that the guards had harassed him, labelling him a murderer and shoving him from his bike on more than one occasion in retaliation. Evidence presented to company leaders prompted swift dismissals, driven less by moral reckoning than fear of negligence lawsuits.

What began as a minor infraction escalated through layers of indifference, illustrating how small evasions of responsibility invite larger calamities.

Lessons for Security Personnel - The Imperative of Vigilance and Accountability

Security roles demand more than passive presence, no, they require active guardianship rooted in the recognition that human societies thrive on mutual restraint and foresight. Personnel must grasp that their position imposes a heightened duty, not merely to observe threats but to mitigate them before they metastasize. In this case, the guards' reluctance stemmed from misguided fears of overstepping, yet laws afford protections for reasonable interventions, such as using proportionate force to avert harm or detain for safety. Ignoring this erodes public trust and invites chaos, as unchecked minor offenses signal permissiveness, drawing bolder violations.

Key takeaways included me prioritising training in legal authorities and de-escalation, understanding that hesitation often costs more than action. Incentives matter, when management fails to enforce standards, frontline workers default to minimal effort, fostering a culture of apathy. Security must internalize that protecting the vulnerable, be they elders, children, the public, it aligns with broader societal order, where individual lapses ripple into collective burdens. Psychological realities underscore this, as human nature inclines toward rationalizing inaction under uncertainty, but disciplined resolve counters it, preventing the slide from oversight to catastrophe, or deaths.

The Superiority of Early Intervention Over Negligence - Trade-Offs in Human Behaviour

Early correction of misconduct operates on timeless principles of order, where prompt, measured responses preserve harmony far better than allowing ills to fester. Bad behaviour, like economic distortions, compounds when ignored, even small infractions breed entitlement, escalating to severe harms as boundaries dissolve. Intervening at the outset, as with halting the 8 year old boy's indoor riding, signals clear expectations, redirecting impulses before they harden into dangerous habits. This approach minimizes damage.  A brief confrontation averts injuries, preserves lives, and spares the young from spiralling consequences, aligning with the insight that prevention outstrips cure in cost and efficacy.

Negligence, by contrast, invites unintended perils, as seen here where inaction led to death and despair. It reflects a false economy, avoiding short-term discomfort yields long-term wreckage, from physical harm to eroded community bonds. Data patterns reveal that jurisdictions tolerating petty disorders witness crime surges, as visible neglect emboldens offenders. For the young, early guidance fosters self-control, drawing on innate capacities for growth, delay risks entrenching defiance, often culminating in tragedy. Ultimately, intervention honours human dignity by upholding standards that protect all, proving that foresight, not passivity, sustains civilized life.

They Escaped Charges - The Specter of Criminal Negligence

The guards dodged grave liabilities under the Northern Territory's Criminal Code Act 1983, where omissions can equate to acts in culpability. Section 160 defines manslaughter as causing death through unlawful acts or omissions, encompassing negligent failures where a duty exists. As security officers tasked with maintaining safe premises, they bore a responsibility to prevent foreseeable dangers, like a child endangering shoppers, yet callously abstained, breaching standards that reasonable prudence demands. This aligns with section 155's mandate against indifferent failure to aid in life-threatening scenarios, potentially amplifying charges if their inaction was deemed reckless. A Possible 7 year sentence.

Section 23 exempts unwilled acts but explicitly subjects negligent omissions to scrutiny, while provisions like section 43BD permit defensive force in preventing harm, undercutting their claims of an inability to intervene. Had prosecutors pursued, evidence of prior warning could easily establish foreseeability, elevating negligence to criminal levels with life imprisonment a possibility. Their bullying post-incident might invite additional scrutiny for assault or contributing to the boy's demise, though suicide complicates causation. Escaping indictment highlights systemic leniency, but underscores that legal mercy doesn't erase moral accountability, negligence's true penalty often lies in the quiet corrosion of conscience and order.

They both lost their jobs, but they both still work in the industry. Why? Because the industry is understaffed. Both of them completed substandard security courses that taught them nothing about their obligations, duty of care or negligence. They knew about Section 441 (Arrest without warrant) and both repeated sections of the WHS (NUL) Act 2011 on the obligations of their employer, yet couldn’t describe or ascribe their own obligations under those same acts.

Now, I get it, a security course at $1,500 is expensive, but you get what you pay for. Just as there are some dodgy universities, there are some dodgy RTO’s and there are many dodgy educators.

2 people lost their lives, and it didn’t need to happen. That’s the cost of incompetence in the security industry. A low-cost course isn’t cheap, it just costs society more, so if you know anyone looking at entering the security industry, tell them to do some research, google the trainer, check their references, good and bad. Even the good ones, definitely the good ones will have foes as well, because if you want to do anything worth doing with honour and integrity, you are going to piss off some people off.

I know out of well over 1,000 students I trained at least 67 I failed despise me, I caught them cheating, they were passed through another trainer, only 4 of them are still in the industry 4 years on, and to them I am the antichrist. The trainer that passed them, an Angel. The others, they became unemployable in the security industry, even with shortages, many of them are now NDIS carers, a career requiring substantially less scrutiny. Not all stories have happy endings. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.