SafeWork NSW v Williams Timber Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Easy Fall Guttering Pty Ltd

SafeWork NSW prosecuted Williams Timber Pty Ltd and Easy Fall Guttering Pty Ltd for breaches of occupational health and safety laws. The companies were fined for their roles in a workplace accident. SafeWork NSW sought an order for the companies to pay its costs. The magistrate declined to make such an order, finding the prosecution's appeal was not procedurally fair. SafeWork NSW appealed to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal centred on whether the magistrate erred by not considering the role of a costs order in sentencing, and whether the appeal process was procedurally fair.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found the magistrate did not adequately consider the sentencing implications of a costs order, and did not give the prosecution an opportunity to address this. The court held that the magistrate failed to give procedural fairness to the prosecution, as it did not allow SafeWork NSW to respond to the specific issue of the role of a costs order in sentencing. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the denial of procedural fairness. The matter was remitted to the magistrate for reconsideration of the costs order.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not make any final orders, as it found the magistrate had not fully considered the issue of the role of a costs order in sentencing. The matter was returned to the magistrate to reconsider the costs order in light of the court's findings. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not address the merits of the costs order itself, but focused on the procedural fairness of the process. The outcome underscored the importance of procedural fairness in criminal appeals and the specific considerations required when dealing with costs orders.