Matta v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Matta v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 729

SENTENCING - legality of decision to record conviction for contraventions of Trade Practices Act - analysis of s 19B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) conferring discretion to discharge offender without conviction - where conviction relevant to vocation - circumstances surrounding offence - peculiarities of offender

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 19B
Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth) s 65C(1)(a)

Lanham v Brake (1983) 13 A Crim R 293 followed
R v Johnston (1987) 45 SASR 482 followed
Re Briese (1997) 92 A Crim R 75 Cited

SHEREF JOSHUA MATTA v AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Q 284 of 1999

FRENCH, KIEFEL, MERKEL JJ
19 MAY 2000
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 284 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SHEREF JOSHUA MATTA
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, KIEFEL, MERKEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MAY 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 284 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SHEREF JOSHUA MATTA
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, KIEFEL, MERKEL JJ

DATE:

19 MAY 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FRENCH J:

  1. I agree for the reasons given by Kiefel J that the appeal should be dismissed.  In Lanham v Brake (1983) 13 A Crim R 293, Cox J said of s 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 that:

    “…the exercise of a s 19B discretion requires more than the mere establishment of one of the par (b) conditions.” (at 300)

  2. Quoting Windeyer J from Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257, he said:

    “Its, or their, existence must, it seems to me, reasonably support the exercise of the discretion the statute gives.  They are not mere pegs on which to hang leniency dictated by some extraneous and idiosyncratic consideration.”

  3. The exercise of the discretion under s 19B is exceptional. For the reasons given by Justice Kiefel, his Honour, in my opinion, properly exercised his discretion in that regard. Even had it been demonstrated that he approached that task with the unduly narrow focus asserted on behalf of the appellant, that would not have led the Court necessarily to intervene - R v Johnston (1987) 45 SASR 482 at 485- 486.

  4. This was not an appropriate case for the invocation of s 19B when proper regard is had to all the factors which his Honour identified including the seriousness of the offence and the want of remorse on the part of the appellant. The appellant was not able to enjoy the benefit of a plea of guilty in the submission in mitigation…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matta v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 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
[2000] FCA 729
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Matta, appealed against a decision of the Federal Court which had found that he had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law. The appellant had engaged in a pyramid scheme where he advertised and sold gold coins that were supposedly backed by gold held in trust. The respondent, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, brought proceedings against the appellant in the Federal Court, seeking declarations and pecuniary penalties for the misleading conduct. The appellant argued that the Federal Court had erred in finding that he had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. He also argued that the penalty imposed on him was excessive.

The court considered whether the conduct engaged in by the appellant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. The court noted that the appellant had made representations to consumers that the gold coins they purchased were backed by gold held in trust. However, the court found that the gold was not held in trust and the appellant had no intention of holding the gold in trust. The court held that the appellant's conduct was misleading or deceptive because it created a false impression in the minds of consumers that their gold coins were backed by gold held in trust. The court also considered whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was appropriate. The court found that the penalty was not excessive, given the serious nature of the appellant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court found that the appellant's conduct was misleading or deceptive, and the penalty imposed was appropriate. The appellant was not successful in his appeal, and the decision of the Federal Court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

FRENCH, KIEFEL, MERKEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH, KIEFEL, MERKEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.