Reardon v Magistrates' Court of Victoria

In Reardon v Magistrates' Court of Victoria, the applicants sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court to hear criminal charges against them for blackmail. The applicants argued that their alleged conduct, if proven, constituted an ancillary contravention of Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), and therefore they were immune from criminal prosecution under section 78 of the Act. The applicants applied for leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's refusal to restrain the Magistrates' Court from conducting a committal hearing for the blackmail charges. The applicants also claimed that the judge had denied them procedural fairness by relying on documents obtained after the hearing concluded, without informing the parties.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the phrase 'criminal proceedings do not lie against a person by reason only' in section 78 of the Act, and whether this phrase conferred immunity from criminal prosecution for any conduct falling within Part IV of the Act. The court also needed to decide whether the purpose of the phrase was limited to characterising proceedings for recovery of pecuniary penalties under section 76 of the Act as civil rather than criminal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness by the judge's reliance on documents obtained after the hearing concluded.

The court held that the phrase in section 78 of the Act referred to contraventions and ancillary contraventions of Part IV of the Act, and that its purpose was to ensure that criminal proceedings did not lie against a person solely by reason of the contravention of Part IV. The court found that the phrase did not confer immunity from criminal prosecution for any conduct falling within Part IV of the Act. Rather, the purpose of the phrase was to characterise proceedings for recovery of pecuniary penalties under section 76 of the Act as civil rather than criminal. The court also held that the judge's reliance on documents obtained after the hearing concluded did not deny the applicants procedural fairness, as the outcome would not have been different in the absence of that denial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were not granted leave to appeal.