SafeWork NSW v Qantas Ground Services Ltd (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 146

SafeWork NSW v Qantas Ground Services Ltd (No. 2) [2023] NSWDC 146

The application was dismissed because there was no demonstrated unfairness in requiring Qantas to meet primary and alternative summonses together. The charges were expressly pressed in the alternative, the court would not find both alleged dominant reasons proved for the same conduct, and criminal trials commonly require parties to address multiple issues and alternative charges at the same time. The s 110 presumption had not been determined because the court had not made findings on the preconditions in s 110(1), and any plea in bar in the nature of autrefois acquit could be argued at the conclusion of the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Alleging Discriminatory Conduct for a Prohibited Reason Contrary to S 104(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (nsw) / During Trial Application by the Defendant for a Stay of All Four Proceedings Unless the Prosecutor Elects to Withdraw Two of the Four Summonses
Outcome
The defendant's application dated 1 February 2023 was dismissed and costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'alternative Charges' 'discriminatory Conduct for a Prohibited Reason' 'proof of Discriminatory Conduct' 'reverse Onus' 'autrefois Acquit' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']
['criminal Procedure' 'work Health and Safety'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'alternative Charges' 'discriminatory Conduct for a Prohibited Reason' 'proof of Discriminatory Conduct' 'reverse Onus' 'autrefois Acquit' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings Alleging Discriminatory Conduct for a Prohibited Reason Contrary to S 104(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (nsw) / During Trial Application by the Defendant for a Stay of All Four Proceedings Unless the Prosecutor Elects to Withdraw Two of the Four Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should stay all four proceedings unless SafeWork NSW elects to withdraw either the two Directions Summonses or the two Issues and Concerns Summonses.' 'Whether the presumption under s 110(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) had arisen after the prosecutor closed its case.' 'Whether it was impermissible or unfair for the prosecutor to plead alternative summonses alleging different dominant prohibited reasons for the same discriminatory conduct.' 'Whether the defendant would be denied an opportunity to raise a plea in bar in the nature of autrefois acquit if the primary charges were dismissed.' 'Whether the court had power to determine the application during the running of the trial under s 247V of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because there was no demonstrated unfairness in requiring Qantas to meet primary and alternative summonses together. The charges were expressly pressed in the alternative, the court would not find both alleged dominant reasons proved for the same conduct, and criminal trials commonly require parties to address multiple issues and alternative charges at the same time. The s 110 presumption had not been determined because the court had not made findings on the preconditions in s 110(1), and any plea in bar in the nature of autrefois acquit could be argued at the conclusion of the trial.

Court Disposition

The defendant's application dated 1 February 2023 was dismissed and costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ['In each of the four matters, dismiss the application dated 1 February 2023 brought by the defendant.' 'In each of the four matters, reserve the costs of the application.']