Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 2) [2020] FCA 1713

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 2) [2020] FCA 1713

The impugned evidence concerning the volume and value of Country Care and Country Care Group sales was relevant and probative as circumstantial evidence of incentive or motive to maintain DVA Tender prices and profit margins, bearing on the fault elements for the charged conduct. The asserted danger that a jury would misuse large gross sales figures as profit figures was significantly overstated because the evidence would be adduced in context, financial evidence was necessary to give scale to a case about profit margins and price levels, and any limited use of the evidence could be made clear by directions. The probative value was therefore not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Federal Criminal Prosecution; Federal Crime and Related Proceedings / Ruling on Prosecution Evidence and Objections by the Accused
Outcome
Objections rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'motive' 'cartel Provision' 'opinion Evidence']
['evidence' 'federal Criminal Law' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'motive' 'cartel Provision' 'opinion Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Criminal Prosecution; Federal Crime and Related Proceedings / Ruling on Prosecution Evidence and Objections by the Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether prosecution evidence concerning the value of the rehabilitation aid supply industry, its participants, and Country Care's share of that industry was relevant to facts in issue." 'Whether the probative value of the impugned evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the evidence could be used as circumstantial evidence of incentive or motive bearing on the fault elements for charges 1 and 2 and charge 3 as accessory liability.']

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned evidence concerning the volume and value of Country Care and Country Care Group sales was relevant and probative as circumstantial evidence of incentive or motive to maintain DVA Tender prices and profit margins, bearing on the fault elements for the charged conduct. The asserted danger that a jury would misuse large gross sales figures as profit figures was significantly overstated because the evidence would be adduced in context, financial evidence was necessary to give scale to a case about profit margins and price levels, and any limited use of the evidence could be made clear by directions. The probative value was therefore not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Objections rejected.

Orders

  • ['The objection to the adducing of the impugned evidence is rejected.']