Trade Practices Commission v Spatharos, J

[1991] FCA 116

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION	) Nos. SG 23, 55, 76, 80, 81, 96 & 112 of 1989
BETWEEN: TRILDE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Prosecutor

- and -

2 8 MAR 1991	JIM SPATHAROS. also known an
FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA	DIMITRIOS SPATHAROS
PRINCIPAL
REDISTRY	Defendant

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Corq: von Doussa J.

6 March 1991

On 19 March 1990 in this court upon pleas of guilty to a number of offences under the Trade Practices Act 1974, fines totalling $7,500 were imposed upon the present applicant, M r Spatharos. An order was made pursuant to sub.s.79A(3) of the Trade Practices Act allowing time to pay those fines. The applicant was granted, in effect, one year, the direction being that the total fine of $7,500 be paid on or before 20 March 1991.

he hopes, $5,300 to discharge the fine.

That date is approaching. Nothing has been paid by the applicant in respect of those fines. He now seeks a further order under sub.s.79A(3) extending time to pay by approximately seven months. He has sworn in his supporting affidavit that it is his intention to pay $1,000 within seven days, to pay.$200 a month for the next six months, and then,

The circumstances of the offences for which the penalty was imposed are set out in the reasons for judgment which were delivered at the time of the imposition of the fines. The offences were particularly serious ones, and very much greater fines were imposed upon a CO-defendant. I repeat what I said then in the imposition of those fines in relation to the present applicant :

"There are considerations in the case of Spatharos which warrant an exercise of mercy in his case. In particular

I accept that he is a young man who has been badly led

astray by Farrow. So that the burden of the fine and the default period of imprisonment which will attach to it are not ruinous to his prospects of rehabilitation I shall impose a fine which is less than offending of similar seriousness would ordinarily attract. He has established that on his means and ability to pay, it will be difficult for him to meet the fine, but I propose to allow a substantial time for him to re-establish himself in employment so that he has a reasonable opportunity to do so. I consider penalties totalling $7,500 should be imposed on him."

It was made clear then, as it had been made clear in the course of submissions on penalty, that an onerous fine was warranted, and that the present applicant would have to make

very serious and conscientious efforts to meet that fine. It	is implicit in the reasons for judgment, and from the amount
involved, that he would probably have to elicit some assistance from members of his family and the like by way of loan to discharge at least the final part of the fine. This assumes that he would have made a conscientious effort in the meantime to pay at least a good proportion of the fine.
The applicant now comes before the court having paid nothing towards the fine. He says that he has been unemployed in the meantime; that he has been unable to find a job; and that he has been in receipt of unemployment benefits, at least until the last month or so when he has obtained a part-time job as a taxi driver for one shift a week.

The applicant is a single man. He lives at home with his

parents, apparently paying no board. He makes regular contributions towards the food which he estimates at about $30 a week. No doubt there are also other modest expenses which a man in dire circumstances would have to meet for the purposes of living. However, faced with this fine and the prospect of imprisonment, a person making a conscientious attempt to pay it could have been expected to save something towards the occasion when the fine had to be paid. Indeed, one would have

expected some payments to be made in the meantime.	Nothing
has been paid.	No adequate explanation has been offered as to

why not. On the contrary the court is told that out of the applicant's unemployment benefit he is able to apply to his own ends money for petrol, entertainment and the like.

In the circumstances I am not satisfied that any conscientious attempt has been made to pay the fine since its imposition. To further extend the time in my view is only to defer the inevitable. The hardships that were likely to face the applicant were taken into account initially both in fixing the amount of the fine, that was considerably less than it would otherwise have been, and in fixing the time to pay.

In my view the applicant has not made out grounds for a

further extension of time. I therefore dismiss the

application. -

I certify that this and the

preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Mr Justice von Doussa

_ / E , V ( I ~ y y y z

Associate:  /

Mr Spatharos appeared for himself

Counsel for the prosecutor	: Mr S Vorreiter
Solicitor for the prosecutor	: Department of Public

Prosecutions

Date of hearing : 6 March 1991