FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hamm v Middleton [1999] FCA 777
COPYRIGHT – defendant charged on three counts – having in his possession, selling, and importing copies of laser video discs – defendant convicted on his own plea – considerations of appropriate penalty – order for forfeiture.
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), ss 132(1)(b), 132(1)(d)(i), 132(2A)(a), 133(4)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 5, 16AMatter Nos. SG 120, 121 and 122 of 1998
GERALD THOMAS GEORGE HAMM v ROBERT HAMILTON MIDDLETON
VON DOUSSA J
ADELAIDE
21 MAY 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SG 120 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
GERALD THOMAS GEORGE HAMM
ProsecutorAND:
ROBERT HAMILTON MIDDLETON
DefendantJUDGE:
VON DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(2A)(a) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2. The defendant be fined the sum of $2,000.00.
3. The defendant pay the prosecutor’s costs fixed at $400.00.
4. The fine and costs be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
5.Pursuant to s 133(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there be delivered up to the owners of the copyright concerned the twenty-one laser video discs seized by the Australian Federal Police at Hindmarsh Gas Centre Pty Ltd (trading as The Laser Disc Shop) at 294 Port Road, Hindmarsh in the State of South Australia on about 26 October 1995.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SG 121 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
GERALD THOMAS GEORGE HAMM
ProsecutorAND:
ROBERT HAMILTON MIDDLETON
DefendantJUDGE:
VON DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2.The defendant be fined the sum of $750.00.
3.The fine be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
4.Pursuant to s 133(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there be delivered up to the owner of the copyright concerned the laser video discs acquired by Eric Leslie Dix from the Hindmarsh Gas Centre Pty Ltd (trading as The Laser Disc Shop) at 294 Port Road, Hindmarsh in the State of South Australia on about 23 October 1995.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SG 122 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
GERALD THOMAS GEORGE HAMM
ProsecutorAND:
ROBERT HAMILTON MIDDLETON
DefendantJUDGE:
VON DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(1)(d)(i) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2.The defendant be fined the sum of $1,750.00.
3.The fine be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
4.Pursuant to s 133(4) of…
Continue reading Hamm v Middleton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hamm v Middleton [1999] FCA 777
- Case
- [1999] FCA 777
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the defendant had contravened specific sections of the Copyright Act and, if so, what penalties should be imposed. The court examined the provisions under s 132(2A)(a), s 132(1)(b), and s 132(1)(d)(i) to determine if the defendant's actions constituted infringements. It also needed to consider the appropriate fines and the disposition of the seized laser video discs under s 133(4) of the Act.
The court found that the defendant was guilty of multiple counts of copyright infringement. The reasoning hinged on the fact that the laser video discs in question were distributed and sold without the consent of the copyright owners, thereby violating the statutory provisions. The court determined the fines based on the severity and intent of the infringements. The fines were set at $2,000 for one count, $750 for another, and $1,750 for a third count. Additionally, the court ordered the delivery of the seized discs to the respective copyright owners. The defendant was also required to pay the prosecutor's costs and the fines within three months from the date of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(2A)(a) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2. The defendant be fined the sum of $2,000.00.
3. The defendant pay the prosecutor’s costs fixed at $400.00.
4. The fine and costs be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
5. Pursuant to s 133(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there be delivered up to the owners of the copyright concerned the twenty-one laser video discs seized by the Australian Federal Police at Hindmarsh Gas Centre Pty Ltd (trading as The Laser Disc Shop) at 294 Port Road, Hindmarsh in the State of South Australia on about 26 October 1995.
Note:
1. The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2. The defendant be fined the sum of $750.00.
3. The fine be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
4. Pursuant to s 133(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there be delivered up to the owner of the copyright concerned the laser video discs acquired by Eric Leslie Dix from the Hindmarsh Gas Centre Pty Ltd (trading as The Laser Disc Shop) at 294 Port Road, Hindmarsh in the State of South Australia on about 23 October 1995.
1. The defendant be convicted on one count for a contravention of s 132(1)(d)(i) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
2. The defendant be fined the sum of $1,750.00.
3. The fine be paid within three calendar months of 21 May 1999.
4. Pursuant to s 133(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there be delivered up to the owners of the copyright concerned fourteen laser video discs which were seized by the Australian Federal Police at Air Express International on about 27 October 1995.
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.