The Court held that specific deterrence ordinarily carries little weight where a corporate offender has ceased operating in the relevant industry, but may retain relevance where two or more entities under common ownership or control are managed and function as a single enterprise, such that the transfer of activities following a safety incident justifies regard to specific deterrence — though on the facts, insufficient evidence was adduced to establish that relationship. The Court also held that an anticipated costs order does not justify reducing the penalty absent a finding that the offender's financial circumstances warrant mitigation, rejecting the broader reading of Barnes that costs constitute an aspect of punishment. On capacity to pay, the Court held that where accounts disclose substantial related-entity transactions without sufficient detail, and no evidence is adduced of the offender's ability to obtain financial support from shareholders or related entities, the offender has not discharged its onus of establishing reduced capacity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.