Judge-alone trial — joinder of charges — stay of charges — amendment of charging document — limitation period — mens rea — exposing workers to risk of serious injury — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — conveyor belt — crushing injuries — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 47 & 48 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 16, 17, 18, 133, 138, 147 & 379 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24 & 25 — Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, s 12(1)(a) — WorkSafe New Zealand v Talley’s Group Limited [2017] NZHC 1103 — Talley’s Group Limited v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZCA 587 — Police v Wyatt [1966] NZLR 1118 — Fungavaka v R [2017] NZCA 195 — R v Boote [2007] NZCA 137 — Cameron v R [2017] NZSC 89. The defendant company was facing charges of engaging in conduct that exposed its workers to risk of injury and failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers. The charges arose from an incident in which one of the defendant's employees got her hand caught in a conveyor belt, and suffered severe crush injuries and a laceration. The day that the charges were filed another of the defendant's employees was injured in a similar accident, resulting in the defendant facing two more charges. The prosecutor had gained consent to have the charges from the two incidents heard together, and subsequently made an application to amend the first set of charges so that the two sets of charges would use the same language. The defendant agreed to some of the proposed changes but opposed others, and subsequently made an application that one of the charges relating to the second incident be either stayed, dismissed or amended. In particular the defendant argued that one of the prosecution's proposed changes, to remove reference to an incident meant to establish that the defendant had been reckless, would mean that the charging document would no longer comply with the requirements set out in the Criminal Procedure Act. Further, for the prosecution to attempt such amendments to the charges would amount to an abuse of process and would make it harder for the defendant to defend the charges, because the allegations would be less clear and the defendant would have less time to build a case. The prosecution argued that it was not required to spell out its entire case in the charging document, and that its charging document contained enough information to inform the defendant of the substance of the offence alleged. The defendant's mens rea could be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Therefore there was no requirement for the charging document to mention "recklessness". The Court found that for prosecutions the defendant must be fully and fairly informed of the essence of the charges it faces. The prosecution is not required to particularise the matters it relies on to prove mens rea. The defendant's mens rea could be inferred from the facts of the case. The previous incident meant to show the defendant's recklessness would be mentioned in the summary of facts and briefs of evidence. The charging document met the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there was no prejudice to the defendant. The prosecution's application to amend the charging document was granted, and the defendant's applications were dismissed. Judgment Date: 1 April 2019.