I think that the legal team representing the Beaconsfield mine are very astute poker players and “they know when to hold them and when to fold them”. Yes, the perception that they may have got away with it, by not being prosecuted by the Tasmanian regultor, certainly is blatent , but every day spent in a court of law or at a coronial inquiry costs dollars, and in this case big amounts. I’m sure that the mine’s legal team, would have weighed up the cost benefit to the mine by being there and advised Beaconsfield against it. From a PR perspective it’s a disaster!

In this case, the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to mount a case against the mine. Beaconsfield are probably just ensuring they avoid self incrimination and, as Ric mentioned, managing their ongoing media profile by avoiding further press exposure.

Not too supprised at a withdrawal.

There comes a point where ongoing participation is just a burden with no real value (either for the company, for the general public, or even for the safety community). If there is nothing new to learn, then it can simply be an exercise in finger pointing. When it gets to that point, then managing reputation becomes more important than assisting others to think that they know how and why something happened. At that point withdrawing can be a better choice than participating. Protecting from liability is not always the only driver in making such decisions.

That said, while lawyers don’t have “sides” they certainly have attitudes and approaches that they tend to bring.