Trade Practices Commission v Roberts

Case [1992] FCA 1082


/082 72

JUDGMEEd'l' No. ..,... Q.o ........ a ........ ....
FE~HUUIJ COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUEERXJLND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION No. O.G. 60 of 1992

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

-and- ,#

=EX ROBERTS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER$ Cooper J.
W R E a W E :  Brisbane
e:  15 October, 1992

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:

That you be fined a sum of $300.00 in relation to the offence and that you have a period of three months within which to pay the fine. In default of payment of the fine, you will be imprisoned foe a period of 12 days.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION No. O.G. 60 of 1992

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

-and-

%EX ROBERTB

C O W  Cooper J.
m:  Brisbane
DATE :  15 October, 1992

SENTENCE

Alex Roberts, you have been convicted on your own

plea of one count of failing to comply with a notice under

section 155 of the Trade Practices Act. You are aged 50

years of age and are married with two small children. At present, you are a social security recipient, having ceased employment in the insurance industry in consequence of an investigation carried out by the Trade Practices Commission concerning the sale of insurance policies to Aboriginal

communities in Queensland.

The notice under section 155 required you to deliver certain information and produce certain documentation in relation to policies of insurance sold by you to persons at the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal community. The notice was served on 30 January, 1992 and required that you comply with it on or before 28 February, 1992. I am advised by your counsel that, upon receiving the notice, you sought legal assistance from the Legal Aid Office, which was refused, and sought private legal assistance, which was unavailable other than at substantial cost. As a result of your inability to obtain appropriate legal advice, I am advised that you suffered, in effect, a breakdown and simply ignored the notice. In part, this is confirmed by a medical report of Dr. Martin dated 14 October, which has been tendered on your behalf.

The provisions o f section 155 of the Trade Practiceg Act are important provisions to enable the Trade Practices Commission to investigate and obtain information in relation to possible contraventions of the Trade Practices Act. Failure to comply with the provisions of the section is, in my opinion, a serious matter.

Although you have some previous criminal convictions in 1962 and 1964, I regard those convictions as spent. Since that time, you have no criminal history and I have no reason to deal with you on a basis other than that, for a

of good character. I raised with your counsel the question considerable period of time, you appear to have been a person

of the possibility of your doing community service, but you have indicated through your counsel that you do not wish to do community service.

This is not a case, in my opinion, calling for the exercise of a discretion not to record a conviction.

The

situation is such that there must be sden to be some punishment and some deterrence in relation to others who may feel minded to ignore the requirements of notices served under section 155.

I take into account in your favour that you indicated at an early time the likelihood of a plea of guilty to the charge and that you have offered to provide material or assist the commission, insofar as you are able, in relation to the matters the subject of the 155 notice if that is required.

I record that the matters that gave rise to the issuing of the notice now appear to have been settled as between the Trade Practices Commission and the various insurance companies concerned.

I also take into account your financial position and your ability to pay a fine. I am advised by counsel that, apart from the receipt of social security payments, you have available funds of somewhere between $300.00 and $500.00, and that you hope to be gainfully employed once these proceedings

are behind you.

In all the circumstances, what I propose to do is

this.

I ORDER that you be fined a sum of $300.00 in relation to the offence and that you have a period of three months within which to pay the fine. In default of payment of the fine,

4 .   ,

you will be imprisoned for a period of 12 days.

I certify that this and the three preceding pages are a true corn of the reasons for sentence herein of the Honourable W . Justice Cooper.

Date: 15 October, 1992

, J n&2t cto

Associate

Prosecutor:  P. Evans
Instructed by:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for Respondent:  G. Snowden
Solicitors for Respondent:  Michael Twohill
Details
AGLC
Trade Practices Commission v Roberts [1992] FCA 1082
Case
[1992] FCA 1082
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trade Practices Commission v Roberts, the dispute arose from the defendant's failure to comply with a notice under section 155 of the Trade Practices Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, Queensland District Registry, General Division. Alex Roberts was convicted of not complying with a notice that required him to deliver certain information and produce certain documentation in relation to insurance policies sold to the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal community.

The central legal issue was whether Roberts should be held accountable for his failure to comply with the notice, despite his inability to obtain legal assistance. The court had to determine the appropriate penalty for this offence, considering the circumstances that led to his non-compliance, including his financial situation and the fact that he had no prior criminal history. The court also considered the importance of the Trade Practices Act provisions in enabling investigations into possible contraventions.

Cooper J held that while the failure to comply with the notice was serious, the court should consider the mitigating factors, including Roberts' inability to obtain legal assistance due to financial constraints, and his willingness to assist the Trade Practices Commission. The judge ordered a fine of $300 with a three-month period to pay it. If the fine was not paid within the specified period, Roberts would be imprisoned for 12 days. The court also noted that the matters that led to the notice had been settled between the Trade Practices Commission and the insurance companies involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.