Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

In the case of Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the respondent, Darryl Jones, was found guilty of contempt of court by the Federal Court of Australia for deliberately breaching an interlocutory order. The dispute arose from orders made on 5 March 2010, which required Jones to obtain written advice from a qualified medical professional before making representations about the prevention or treatment of cancer or any medical condition. The orders also mandated that Jones prominently disclose details of the advice and provide a copy of the advice to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Jones did not comply with these orders, leading to the charges of contempt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the charge against Jones was sufficiently stated and whether a Jones v Dunkel inference could be drawn against him for not calling witnesses. The court examined whether the statement of charge was adequate to support the sentence imposed on Jones. The charge specified multiple breaches of the interlocutory orders, detailing the failures to obtain written advice, disclose details of the advice, and provide copies of the advice to the ACCC. The court also considered whether the failure to call witnesses could lead to an adverse inference under the Jones v Dunkel principle.

The court held that the statement of charge was sufficient to support the sentence, as it clearly outlined the breaches of the interlocutory orders. The court noted that while Jones was entitled to call witnesses, his decision not to do so did not necessarily mean he had nothing to say in his defence. Therefore, the court was not compelled to draw an adverse inference against Jones for not calling witnesses. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was set aside, with the ACCC's application remitted for further consideration at first instance. Additionally, the ACCC was ordered to pay Jones’ costs of the appeal.