Attorney General (NSW) v Built NSW Pty Ltd

The case of Attorney General (NSW) v Built NSW Pty Ltd involves a dispute regarding the proper institution of criminal proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. The defendants were prosecuted by the Attorney General of New South Wales for breaches of occupational health and safety laws. The central issue before the court was whether the proceedings were validly instituted by a person authorised under the Act, specifically an inspector. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the statutory requirement for certain documents to be signed by the inspector was mandatory and, if not, whether any failure to sign would invalidate the proceedings. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether the failure to correctly institute the proceedings could be validated by section 16(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and whether the charges were sufficiently particularised to disclose an offence known to law.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that while the Act requires proceedings to be instituted by authorised persons, including inspectors, the failure of an inspector to personally institute the proceedings did not necessarily invalidate the proceedings if another authorised person had done so. The court held that the requirement for certain documents to be signed by an inspector was not mandatory, and therefore, any failure to sign did not invalidate the proceedings. The court also found that section 16(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act could operate to validate the proceedings if they were otherwise validly instituted by an authorised person. Lastly, the court determined that the charges were sufficiently particularised to disclose an offence known to law, thus they could not be dismissed on those grounds.

In light of the above findings, the court concluded that the proceedings were validly instituted, and the charges were sufficiently particularised. The court also found that the failure to sign certain documents by the inspector did not affect the validity of the proceedings. The Court of Criminal Appeal was able to consider the issues within the notice of contention, as they fell within the scope of section 5C of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.