R v Cordwell; R v Cordwell Resources Pty Ltd

In the Court of Appeal, the defendants, Cordwell and Cordwell Resources Pty Ltd, challenged their convictions and sentences following an incident at their workplace that resulted in serious injury to an employee. The company and its director were separately convicted under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) for recklessly exposing the employee to a risk of death or serious injury. The company was fined $500,000, and the director was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which was suspended immediately. Both applicants argued that the primary judge had erred in considering their previous conduct and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The director further contended that the primary judge had incorrectly considered his conduct related to the company's offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in taking into account and according significance to the previous conduct of the defendants, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences, the culpability of the defendants, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. The court also assessed whether the sentences were appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the potential impact on the defendants and the community.

The court found that there was no merit in the arguments that the primary judge had erred. The court held that the primary judge had correctly considered the previous conduct of the defendants and that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences and serve the purposes of punishment, including deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentences were proportionate to the offending and appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

In CA No 283 of 2021, the application for leave to appeal was refused. In CA No 284 of 2021, the application for leave to appeal was also refused.