Industrial manslaughter: Court hears Craig Williams ‘the wrong guy’ in Alan Dinning fall probe

Prosecutors say when a plasterer raised safety concerns with Williams he responded ‘We haven’t got the money’ and ‘Look after yourself’. Find out what happened in court.

Darwin contractor Craig Williams outside the Darwin Local Court where he stands charged with industrial manslaughter. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

WorkSafe investigators “got the wrong guy” when they charged Darwin contractor Craig Williams with the industrial manslaughter of Alan Dinning, a court has heard.

Williams was charged with one count of industrial manslaughter in March last year after the 60-year-old fell 3.2m to his death while installing cabinetry at a two-storey residential site in Bayview in April 2020.

In asking the court to find he had no case to answer on Monday, his lawyer Luke Officer told Judge Ben O’Loughlin there was a “worker carve out” that protected Williams from liability.

Mr Officer said if WorkSafe could not establish that his client was a “person conducting a business or undertaking” who was in charge of the site “then the case simply falls over”.

“In some respects it’s like an Agatha Christie novel, you’ve got all of these duties and all of these workers, who could it possibly be (that’s in charge)?” he said.

Darwin contractor Craig Williams outside the Darwin Local Court. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

“We say that he is (a worker) and we say that the authority got the wrong guy, they’ve charged the wrong guy.”

Mr Officer said the court did not have to “be satisfied who is playing what role — or who did it, using the Agatha Christie analogy” to find there was no case to answer.

“It’s sufficiency of evidence and the authority haven’t produced any evidence to rebut or exclude that Mr Williams was in fact a worker for the entire duration of the relevant period,” he said.

But WorkSafe prosecutor Paul Crean said Williams was “clearly performing the role of a principal contractor” and “was aware that there was grave health and safety concerns”.

“(A plasterer) approached Williams and raised the issue with him saying ‘Mate, you’re going to have to put rails up around those stairs and all that stuff because we’re still carrying s--t up there and you know, it’s just unsafe’,” he said.

“Williams responded ‘We haven’t got the money to, you know, look after yourself’.”

Mr Crean said the 1096-page brief of evidence contained “overwhelming” evidence “that satisfies the test for the committal”.

He said in the absence of any written contract, “it’s the actions of Mr Williams which assume and clearly identify that he is the principal contractor on that site”.

“He’s opening the site, he’s closing the site, he’s controlling workers being allowed into the site, he’s clearly being addressed on a regular basis in terms of health and safety concerns,” he said.

“He introduced himself as the new site supervisor, there’s no dispute or uncertainty here, your honour, in terms of his role, he’s the man in control.”

Williams is yet to enter a plea and Mr O’Loughlin will hand down his decision on Monday.