SafeWork SA declines to prosecute Gayle Woodford’s employers for alleged unsafe work practices ahead of her 2016 murder

The family of a nurse murdered while working in a remote community say they’ve been badly let down by authorities.

The distraught family of murdered Outback nurse Gayle Woodford say they are “disgusted” by a government department’s refusal to prosecute her employer for unsafe work practices.

On Thursday, SafeWork SA announced it would not pursue Nganampa Health Council over Mrs Woodford’s 2016 death, saying there is “no reasonable prospect of conviction”.

Mrs Woodford’s husband, Keith, told The Advertiser neither he nor his family would give up on their fight to have NHC held accountable – but were at a loss as to what to do next.

“This is absolutely disgusting … SafeWork SA have given us no explanation, no real reason, for why they won’t do this and for what they’re doing to us,” he said.

“This was supposed to be our closure, now it’s not … my family is suffering so badly because of this, it’s just ongoing and we’ve got no closure at all.

“It’s just f---ed; that’s the only word for it.”

Mrs Woodford was abducted from her home in Fregon, in the APY Lands, raped and murdered by ice addict Dudley Davey in March 2016.

He was jailed for life with a 32-year non-parole period, while laws were introduced making it illegal for health workers to attend call-outs in remote communities alone.

In 2021, the Coroners Court found that Mrs Woodford’s death could have been prevented had NHC not allowed nurses to work alone when attending male clients.

In its statement, SafeWork SA said it had conducted a “comprehensive” 12-month investigation of NHC, involving “over 1200 documents” and an interview with Davey.

Gayle Woodford's husband, Keith, outside the Coroners Court speaking to the media after the inquest findings were handed down. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe.

“We have determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction against NHC for committing a breach of its work health and safety duty,” it said.

“(Such) offences are criminal offences and require evidence to the criminal standard of proof, or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“There is a distinct difference between the standards of proof applied in the criminal court and the Coroner’s Court – where it is the balance of probabilities – which can affect the admissibility and use of evidence.”

Mr Woodford said that was “no comfort”, and that his legal team would explore further options.

“There might be something more we can do, but we should not have to do it – it’s SafeWork’s job, that’s what they get paid to do,” he said.

“I’m just so angry, I really feel like they just did not want to prosecute for whatever reason, but I’ve got no idea what that reason might be.”