I would contend that:
Contemplation point in time:
The contemplation of the legal action from the prosecution side realistically starts at the call for Ambulance/Police to attend site, the hse inspector on arrival is looking to see if there is a basis for a realistic prospect of conviction, in the public interest, after all.
as such the clock should start ticking at the same time and should apply to the defence side as well.
Ability to properly advise/defend case ,access to relevant information:
Whilst it may well be said, a nuber of times, "there may not be a prosecution" during the investigation phase, realistically, in a large proporion of cases, it is likely that an prosecution will likely follow, and the purpose of the visit is "contemplation of a case" through an investigation.
As such, as the effect of the decision, (un-amended) is that the prosecution can gather evidence and hold until a decision has been come to on pleading not guilty for access to the "unused evidence", then fairness and balance should dictate that the same should apply for defence throughout.
It is extremely one sided to say that all activity done on behalf of the organisation be handed over whilst the prosecution wouldn't offer the same.
Perhaps I am looking at it from a perspective of wanting to see fairness and equality under the law, rather than another hand tied behind the back of defendent. - should one not be equal under the law?
already the defendent will:-
have to pay ffi for investigation costs, have to pay for own investigation, lawyer/barrister costs, and then a fine of significance.(if convicted), additional ongoing insurance hikes etc.
Consequences:
Whilst there will be lots saying, "good, that's because you didn't take safety seriously in the first place", I would contend that it is a step too far, one-sided for the prosecution, leaving only the largest in a position able to attempt to challenge assertions of the prosecution or defend oneselves.
As such, I anticipate that there will be a number of cases set aside once people think about the consequences - retrials, challenged and unsafe prosecutions because the defence was hamstrung.
- last things anyone would want would be to have to go through whole process again.