Ian Cornwell v Mark Curran

The case of Ian Cornwell v Mark Curran concerns the appellant's appeal against his conviction on two charges of contravening provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989 (ACT). The matter had undergone extensive hearings over several months, which were complicated by the confusing presentation of prosecution evidence and the appellant's unrepresented and laborious cross-examination. Two of the six initial charges were withdrawn by the respondent, and two others were amended. The appellant's wife, Ms Davidson, a legal practitioner, filed written submissions on his behalf, leading to some confusion about her role. Ultimately, two of the four remaining charges were dismissed. Ms Davidson challenged the convictions on the remaining two charges, arguing that the charges were invalid for failure to specify essential elements of the alleged offences.

The primary legal issues were whether the charges specified the essential elements of the offences they alleged and whether such elements could be pleaded by implication. The court had to determine if the charges disclosed offences known to law and if they were sufficiently specific to inform the appellant of the case he had to meet.

The court found that the first charge did not explicitly state that the appellant had control over the workplace, which was an essential element of the offence under s 29 of the Act. The court held that an ingredient of an offence cannot be omitted from an information even if it can be implied, citing the High Court decision in John L Pty Ltd v The Attorney-General for the State of NSW. The second charge also failed to specify essential elements of the offence under s 79 of the Act, particularly that the appellant had been given the relevant improvement notice and that the failure related to a matter over which he had control. Consequently, both charges were deemed invalid. Although the charges could have been amended under s 28 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), the court decided against allowing such an amendment due to the time and expense already invested in the proceedings.

Given the invalidity of the charges, the appeal was upheld, the informations were quashed, and the convictions and penalties were set aside. The court will hear counsel on costs.