Commissioner for Fair Trading v Matthew Geoffrey Rixon (No. 5)

The matter before the court involved the Commissioner for Fair Trading against Matthew Geoffrey Rixon. The nature of the dispute centred around Rixon's multiple breaches of consent orders, which prohibited him from engaging in residential building work. Rixon had pleaded guilty to 18 acts of contempt, all committed during his non-parole period for a prior similar breach of the same orders. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these acts of contempt, considering factors such as Rixon's establishment of a company structure to minimise the risk of detection, his lack of genuine contrition, and the health impacts of a 24-hour lockdown due to COVID-19. The court also needed to weigh the timing of Rixon's plea of guilty and the wisdom of his decision to enter a new line of work, given his history of similar breaches.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for contempt, especially given Rixon's repeated breaches and the lack of remorse shown. The court considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the public from further unlawful conduct. It also had to assess whether the conditions in custody, exacerbated by COVID-19, warranted any adjustments in sentencing. The court was required to balance these considerations with the principle that the imposition of a term of imprisonment should be a last resort, used only when necessary to uphold the authority of the court and deter future breaches.

The court found that, despite the hardships of the 24-hour lockdown, the conditions did not warrant a departure from the usual approach to sentencing. It also noted that Rixon's repeated breaches, lack of genuine contrition, and the establishment of a company to facilitate his activities demonstrated a deliberate attempt to evade the orders. Given his history of similar breaches, the court determined that a term of imprisonment was necessary to achieve the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the public. The court exercised its discretion to impose a term of imprisonment, emphasising the seriousness of the breaches and the need to uphold the authority of the court.

The final orders of the court included a term of imprisonment for Rixon, reflecting the gravity of his repeated breaches of the consent orders and the need to deter future conduct of this nature. The court's decision underscored the importance of compliance with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so.