eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 2) [2023] FCA 1351

File number: QUD 451 of 2023
Judgment of: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 27 October 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – r 42.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where respondent charged with contempt of court – application for issue of warrant – whether Court satisfied that it is likely that the respondent will abscond or otherwise withdraw from the jurisdiction – warrant issued
Legislation:

Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) ss 75 and 80

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Div 42.2 and r 42.14

Cases cited: Polis v Zombor (No 4) [2019] FCA 2101
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of hearing: 30 October 2023
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M McKechnie with Mr M Bayliss
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 451 of 2023
BETWEEN:

ESAFETY COMMISSIONER

Applicant

AND:

ANTHONY ROTONDO AKA ANTONIO ROTONDO

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

RANGIAH J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 OCTOBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.A warrant be issued for the arrest and detention of the respondent in the form annexed to this order.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


Form 90
Rules 34.14(2); 41.05(1); 42.01 & 42.14(3)

WARRANT FOR ARREST

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY: QUEENSLAND
DIVISION: GENERAL   NO QUD 451 OF 2023

ESAFETY COMMISSIONER
Applicant

ANTHONY ROTONDO AKA ANTONIO ROTONDO
Respondent

To all Queensland and Australian Federal Police officers

Arrest Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo; DOB 12/02/1970) and detain him in custody and bring him before the Federal Court of Australia to answer the charge set out below.

Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo) is charged with contempt in that it is alleged that:

1. On 20 October 2023, the Federal Court of Australia made interim orders which relevantly:

a.Required Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo) to take all reasonable steps to remove or have removed from the website mrdeepfakes.com, intimate images of six identified individuals, as soon as practicable.

b.Restrained Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo), pursuant to s 122(1)(a) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) from posting any intimate image on any social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service, each within the meaning of s 5 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).

c.Required the parties not to publish the content of the order, the schedule to the order, or the affidavit of Luke Boon affirmed on 19 October 2023 (the Documents).

(together, the Interim Orders)

2.Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo) has disobeyed order 1 by failing to take all reasonable steps to remove or have removed from the website mrdeepfakes.com, intimate images of the six identified individuals

3.Anthony Rotondo (also known as Antonio Rotondo) has disobeyed orders 2 and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] FCA 1351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 2) involved a charge of contempt of court against the respondent, Rotondo, by the eSafety Commissioner. The Federal Court was tasked with considering an application for the issuance of a warrant to arrest the respondent. The central issue before the Court was whether it was satisfied that the respondent was likely to abscond or otherwise withdraw from the jurisdiction, thereby warranting the issuance of such an arrest warrant.

In addressing this issue, the Court considered the relevant legal provisions, particularly rule 42.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The Court examined the affidavit provided by Luke Boon, affirmed on 19 October 2023, which contained evidence pertinent to the likelihood of the respondent absconding. The Court also took into account the existing orders made by Justice Thomas on 20 October 2023, particularly the schedule to those orders and the affidavits supporting them. After careful deliberation, the Court concluded that it was indeed satisfied with the evidence presented, leading to the decision to issue the warrant.

The Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the respondent, Rotondo, due to the likelihood of him absconding or withdrawing from the jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court made orders restricting the publication of specific documents and affidavits without leave of the Court, while ensuring that the operation of the other existing orders was unaffected. This decision underscores the Court's role in ensuring compliance with its orders and the enforcement mechanisms available when necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Persons who are not parties to this proceeding shall not publish the Orders of Justice Thomas of 20 October 2023, the schedule to that Order, or the affidavit of Luke Boon affirmed 19 October 2023, without leave of the Court.

2. Nothing in Order 1 affects the operation of order 6 of the Orders of Justice Thomas of 20 October 2023.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.