Cordwell v Tasmania

The appellant, Cordwell, was found guilty by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm under s 172 of the *Criminal Code*. The charge arose from a group attack on the victim, which resulted in serious injuries, including the loss of sight in one eye. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The appeal was heard by Estcourt J, Martin and Porter AJJ.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. This required the court to consider the sentencing judge's approach to liability, particularly in relation to common purpose under s 4 of the *Criminal Code*. Specifically, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge erred in finding that the appellant was not personally responsible for inflicting the grievous bodily harm, nor that the harm was inflicted intentionally by any participant in the attack, to the requisite standard of proof.

The appellate court reasoned that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of criminal liability. The judge was unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant personally inflicted the grievous bodily harm, nor that any participant acted with the intention to cause such harm. Despite this, the judge found the appellant guilty on the basis of common purpose liability. The court concluded that, given the appellant's participation in the group attack and the serious nature of the victim's injuries, the sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years was not manifestly excessive.