SafeWork NSW v Pendle Ham & Bacon Pty Ltd (No 2)

SafeWork NSW brought an action against Pendle Ham & Bacon Pty Ltd in relation to a workplace health and safety matter, which ultimately reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on whether the company had breached its duty of care under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. The case involved questions regarding the interpretation and application of certain statutory provisions, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.

The court was tasked with determining whether questions submitted to it by the prosecutor, after the reasons for judgment had been delivered, could be submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The questions in question related to the prosecutor's contention that certain elements of the relevant offences had not been established. Further, the court had to decide whether the prosecutor had a surrogate right of appeal, and if the proposed questions were indeed questions of law as defined under section 5AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the questions proposed by the prosecutor did not qualify as questions of law under section 5AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. Consequently, the court did not have the authority to submit these questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal for determination. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing the submission of questions to the appellate court and noted that the prosecutor's proposed questions did not meet the criteria for being considered questions of law. As a result, the court declined to submit the questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court's final order was that the questions 1-7 proposed by the prosecutor were not questions of law for the purposes of section 5AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, and that the court did not have the power to state them to the Court of Criminal Appeal for determination.