• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The charge arose from fatal events during horizontal directional drilling in Station Street, Katoomba, on 1 April 2016. Rockfield was carrying out drilling work beneath footpaths for the installation of cable for the National Broadband Network. The equipment drove a connected string of metal drill rods, with a drill head attached. Work proceeded from an entry pit towards an exit pit; the drill head could be moved to avoid underground assets and directed towards the exit pit [Factual background 1–5].

Walsh's role was to track the underground drill head using an electronic digi-tracker. At about 1.30pm, the drill head had reached the exit pit but had been advanced too far forward. Walsh was close to the pit and communicating with the drill operator when the drill string and drill head “snaked” out of the ground and struck him. He sustained fatal injuries. The judgment records that no exclusion zone was in place around the exit pit and Walsh was not wearing a helmet [Factual background 6–7]. Those facts explain the background to the charge; this ruling did not determine whether Rockfield was guilty.

The matter had been listed for a five-day hearing beginning on 16 March 2020. SafeWork NSW had an expert report from civil engineer Charles Stockton, dated 21 June 2019 [The expert witness issue 1]. Rockfield's solicitor had earlier retained David Gunnell and obtained a report for representations to the prosecutor. The report was served without prejudice. Rockfield understood that Gunnell could provide further assistance, and he had acknowledged the Expert Code of Conduct. However, on 29 January 2020, Gunnell advised that his employer's policy prevented involvement in matters requiring court attendance [The expert witness issue 2].

Rockfield identified an alternate expert, but that expert's commitments meant a report could not be prepared before the listed hearing [The expert witness issue 3]. Rockfield also argued that it needed particulars to brief the expert properly [The expert witness issue 4]. The judge had previously indicated a preliminary view that the hearing should be vacated because of the expert issue alone, while reserving the particulars issue for closer examination [Introduction 3].

Scotting DCJ confirmed that the expert unavailability provided sufficient reason to vacate the trial date. On particulars, the judge did not make a final ruling. Instead, the judgment sets out general observations, directs Rockfield to identify the requests it wished to maintain, directs the prosecutor to answer, and lists the matter for possible further submissions and trial-date fixing [Orders 1–6].

Why the court decided this way

The reason for vacating the trial date was practical and specific. Rockfield's earlier expert was no longer available to attend court, and the alternate expert could not complete a report before the hearing. The judge considered that enough to establish a sufficient reason for vacating the date [The expert witness issue 2–5]. The ruling does not set out a broader test for adjournments or determine any issue concerning the admissibility or eventual weight of either expert's evidence.

The particulars issue required more care. The judge described the parties' correspondence as extensive and considered that the matter should be fully argued unless the parties could reach agreement. The stated reason was that the issue raised matters of general importance in the jurisdiction and the court was reluctant to decide it without adequate argument [The particulars issue 1–2]. That reservation matters: the observations that followed were expressly preliminary, not a final decision on each request.

The judgment identifies several functions of particulars. They inform the defendant of the case it will face and help the court connect evidence led at trial to allegations in the originating process [The particulars issue 4]. In the context of a criminal charge, the accused must be informed how the prosecution proposes to prove the offence. The court noted that this may require the prosecutor to specify acts relied on, with the resulting election binding the determination of the case and informing the admissibility of evidence [The particulars issue 5]. The degree of detail needed depends on the nature and circumstances of the offence, rather than on a single approach for all cases [The particulars issue 6].

For work health and safety prosecutions, the judge described Kirk as establishing a starting point: the prosecutor must identify the measures the defendant was required to take [The particulars issue 7]. The judgment also refers to Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister, quoting its discussion of how an alleged failure to ensure an adequate system or step may be framed as a failure to have measures sufficient to achieve a sufficiently particularised outcome [The particulars issue 8]. That passage is quoted authority, not a factual finding about what Rockfield should have done.

The judge then identified three perceived shortcomings in SafeWork NSW's responses. First, in the judge's preliminary view, a prosecutor should not dispose of an appropriate particulars request with a blanket label that it is not a proper request. Some requests sought the evidence to be relied on to establish a pleaded measure; the judge considered that those requests should receive a response, potentially framed in the alternative [General observations 2]. Second, some responses did not identify the evidence in the prosecution brief that would be relied on. The judge considered “a matter for evidence” inadequate in that context [General observations 3]. Third, the prosecutor should not keep options open depending on what evidence is admitted at trial. The judge connected the admissibility of evidence to proof of the case actually pleaded in the summons [General observations 4].

The court also recognised that not every request made by Rockfield was necessarily appropriate. It said a substantial number should not be pursued further [General observations 1]. The orders therefore required Rockfield to identify the requests it wanted answered, allowing refinement consistent with the reasons. They then required SafeWork NSW to respond, with further written submissions and argument if needed [Orders 2–5].

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to change the law. It summarises existing authority on particulars and applies that framework to an interlocutory dispute, while leaving the specific requests unresolved. The “before” position, as the judge described it, was that particulars serve recognised functions in criminal proceedings, that the accused must know the case to meet, and that the required level of detail depends on the particular charge and circumstances [The particulars issue 4–6].

The court cited Johnson v Miller for the purpose of particulars and for the court's common law power to order particulars necessary in the interests of justice [The particulars issue 4; General observations 2]. It referred to De Romanis v Sibraa, noted as cited with approval in Kirk, in describing the defendant's position as seeking particulars needed to prepare a defence rather than seeking to set aside a summons for an invalid charge [The particulars issue 3]. It cited S v The Queen and Veysey v R for the proposition that the prosecution may be required to specify acts relied upon, and that particulars can frame the case and affect evidentiary questions [The particulars issue 5].

Within the specific work health and safety context, the judgment calls identification of the measures required of the defendant the starting point, citing Kirk [The particulars issue 7]. It also refers to Baiada's discussion of how a measure can be expressed by reference to an adequate system or step, provided the outcome is sufficiently particularised [The particulars issue 8]. These authorities are presented as the legal background; this judgment does not provide a new comprehensive test for every particulars dispute.

The “after” position in this case was procedural rather than a final clarification of the parties' substantive positions. The court expressed preliminary views that certain response styles were deficient, but it did not order a particular answer to any identified request in the final orders. It instead established a process for the requests to be narrowed and answered before any final argument [Orders 2–5]. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to describe the judgment as finally deciding that every requested evidentiary detail must be supplied, or as dismissing any part of the charge.

The court observed that failure to provide particulars can lead to dismissal of a charge [General observations 2]. That is a statement of a possible consequence, not an order made here. No dismissal occurred in this ruling, and no conclusion was reached about whether the prosecution had failed to provide particulars required in Rockfield's case.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The judge explained that particulars “inform the defendant of the case that it will face” and allow the court to link evidence with the allegations [The particulars issue 4]. In plain English, the charge must be sufficiently clear for the accused and the court to understand what the prosecution says happened and how the evidence relates to that allegation.

The judgment says that the prosecutor must identify “the measures that the defendant was required to take” in a work health and safety prosecution [The particulars issue 7]. This describes the starting point for identifying the alleged safety obligation in the prosecution case. It does not identify any particular measure that Rockfield was required to take.

The judge warned that a prosecutor should not avoid a binding answer to an appropriate request by applying a blanket label that it is “not a proper request for particulars” [General observations 2]. In plain English, the court considered that the substance of a request matters: if it properly asks what case is being advanced, a general refusal may not answer it. The judge also left open that a prosecutor could respond in the alternative if that was appropriate.

The court considered it inadequate, in some circumstances, to respond that an issue was “a matter for evidence” when the request concerned evidence in the prosecution brief relied upon to establish the charge [General observations 3]. The point was not that particulars must reproduce every item of evidence. Rather, on the court's preliminary view, a response must identify the relied-on basis where the request properly seeks that information.

Finally, the judge stated that the prosecutor should not keep its options open depending on the evidence admitted at trial. The prosecutor must show how evidence relates to proof of the case pleaded in the summons [General observations 4]. Put simply, the pleaded case is meant to define the prosecution's case, and evidence must be connected to it. The court did not finally decide how that principle applied to each disputed item.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The ruling is most directly relevant to criminal proceedings where a defendant requests particulars to understand the prosecution case, rather than challenging the formal validity of the charge. Rockfield expressly did not seek to set aside the summons as invalid; it said the particulars were needed to prepare its defence [The particulars issue 3]. That distinction shaped the court's discussion.

It is especially relevant to work health and safety prosecutions where the charge alleges a failure to comply with a duty and the prosecution case turns on measures said to have been required of the defendant. The judgment points to identification of those measures as the starting point [The particulars issue 7]. It may also be relevant where the prosecution alleges an inadequate system or step, since the judgment refers to the possibility of describing such a failure by reference to measures sufficient to achieve a sufficiently particularised outcome [The particulars issue 8].

The ruling may assist in analysing disputes where the defence asks what acts, omissions, measures or evidence the prosecutor relies on, and the prosecution responds with a blanket objection, says the answer is a matter for evidence, or reserves the ability to adapt its case to evidence later admitted. The judgment treats those response approaches as concerns where an appropriate request is involved [General observations 2–4]. Its guidance remains preliminary and fact-sensitive.

The separate expert issue arose in a different procedural setting: an imminent trial, an unavailable original expert, and an alternate expert unable to prepare a report in time. The court found the particular circumstances sufficient to vacate the listed dates [The expert witness issue 2–5]. The decision does not establish that any expert unavailability automatically justifies vacating a hearing.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no account of later cases considering, following, distinguishing or rejecting SafeWork NSW v Rockfield Contracting Pty Ltd. Accordingly, the treatment of this decision by later courts cannot be established from the text provided.

The judgment itself discusses earlier authorities. It refers to De Romanis v Sibraa as having been cited with approval in Kirk [The particulars issue 3]. It cites Johnson v Miller for the purposes of particulars and later for the court's common law power to order particulars [The particulars issue 4; General observations 2]. It relies on S v The Queen and Veysey v R in explaining the possible need to specify acts relied on and the connection between particulars and the prosecution case [The particulars issue 5]. It also refers to Kirk and Baiada in the work health and safety context [The particulars issue 7–8].

Those citations show the legal framework Scotting DCJ considered, not subsequent endorsement of the 2020 decision. The text gives no later judicial history, appeal outcome or subsequent application of its preliminary observations. A research account of subsequent treatment would therefore require sources beyond this judgment, which are not provided here.

Still-open questions

The central unresolved question was which of Rockfield's requests were appropriate and what answers SafeWork NSW had to give. The judge said that some requests were potentially proper, but also that a substantial number should not be pursued further [General observations 1–2]. The final orders required Rockfield to identify the requests it maintained, with any appropriate refinement, and required the prosecutor to respond [Orders 2–3]. The court then reserved further argument [Orders 4–5].

The judgment also leaves open how much evidentiary detail particulars must contain in a particular prosecution. It states that requests identifying evidence relied on to establish a pleaded measure may be appropriate, but does not define a universal boundary between particulars and disclosure of evidence. The court's stated position was that the nature and circumstances of the offence matter, and that no single approach applies in every case [The particulars issue 6].

A further question is how the prosecution may properly plead an alleged failure concerning an adequate system or step. The judgment quotes Baiada on the possibility of framing the allegation by reference to an outcome, provided that outcome is sufficiently particularised [The particulars issue 8]. It does not determine whether SafeWork NSW's charge, or any particular measure in it, met that standard.

The procedural consequences of any eventual failure to provide particulars were also unresolved. The judge noted that failure can lead to dismissal of a charge [General observations 2], but did not decide whether dismissal would be appropriate here, or what other procedural consequence might follow. The hearing date was vacated, the particulars issue was left for further steps, and costs were reserved [Orders 1–6].

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.