Injury and death in the workplace
The post discusses two workplace injuries that are on the public record involving Redflex mobile speed camera operator workers. Injury details in spoiler tags.
Injury 1: Prisk v Danslow [2024] NSWDC 535 (13 November 2024)
Injury 2: Graham v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] NSWPIC 191; (2 April 2026)
Injury 1: >!Mr Prisk was the victim of a coward punch on 9 February 2023 by Mr Danslow. Mr Prisk was working in a paired arrangement with another speed camera operator, his job at the time was to bring the roadside warning signs for the speed camera car. He waited in the Oberon RSL Club carpark in a plain white van with the engine running. Mr Danslow came and Mr Prisk opened the driver's window slightly to talk to him. Mr Danslow accused him of being a paedophile, Mr Prisk tried to put up his window, Mr Danslow after trying to open his locked van door forced it down and then one-hit punched him in the face. Mr Prisk suffered extensive injuries and ultimately lost most of his teeth and also developed PTSD.!< Mr Prisk lodged a workers compensation claim, Mr Danslow pled guilty and was criminally convicted and sentenced at Bathurst Local Court on 4 April 2024, and then there was a civil liability case against him on 11 November 2024. He chose not to file a defence and was handed a default judgment of $401,264.45 and ordered to pay plaintiff's legal costs.
Injury 2 >!involves a speed camera operator who: "died on 25 October 2024 as a result of injuries which he received on that date in the course of his employment with Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd". It was a tragic workplace accident that occurred on the same day and was a single-vehicle rollover involving no one other than Mr Graham.!< The link above is to the lump-sum compensation payout to Mr Graham's family decided by agreement on 2 April 2026, the lump-sum death benefit awarded was $750,00 indexed to $938,600.
Injury 1 made the news with both cases, injury 2 it seems did not made the media. The criminal conviction with injury 1 isn't published publicly, but the civil case is.
Here are the questions I have: How does Redflex still have a contract to operate after these two catastrophic injuries?
Why would Mr Danslow not file a defence in the civil case? Out of the $401K Mr Prisk was awarded, $140K is for medical expenses. But Mr Prisk has workers compensation to pay for all medical expenses. My question is why sue Danslow for that 140K when $260K looks far more realistic for him to actually realise without forcing the thug into bankrupcy? Would Prisk also have sued Redflex (reaching an out of court settlement)? Redflex allowed him to park in a pub carpark while waiting for his partner to complete his job in an unmarked white van with the engine running for three hours, that does not sound like a safe system of work it sounds negligent. That system of work introduced a second person and second vehicle to complete a one-person task because the camera car didn't have the ability to carry the signs at the time, but there were obvious safer alternatives. For example fit the camera car with a towbar to tow a small trailer.