Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 7) [2021] CA 265

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 7) [2021] CA 265

There does not need to be complete identity between parties relied upon for the effect condition under s 44ZZRD(2) and the competition condition under s 44ZZRD(4); it suffices that the relevant supplies and thus suppliers overlap. The objection to the prosecution's approach is therefore rejected.

Parties
Prosecutor: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; First Respondent: Country Care Group Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Robert Martin Hogan; Third Respondent: Cameron John William Harrison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Objection rejected; prosecution may continue to rely on the evidence objected to.
Legal Topics
Cartel Conduct, Competition and Consumer Act, Criminal Procedure, Evidentiary Objections
Competition Law Criminal Law Cartel Conduct Competition and Consumer Act Criminal Procedure Evidentiary Objections

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Country Care Group Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Robert Martin Hogan

Second Respondent

Cameron John William Harrison

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution may rely on evidence regarding an entity for the likely effect condition in s 44ZZRD(2) but not for the competition condition in s 44ZZRD(4) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether there must be complete identity or merely overlap of parties relied on to prove the effect and competition conditions under ss 44ZZRD(2) and 44ZZRD(4)
  3. 3 Whether the timing and nature of the prosecution's notification of narrowing its case results in unfairness to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

There does not need to be complete identity between parties relied upon for the effect condition under s 44ZZRD(2) and the competition condition under s 44ZZRD(4); it suffices that the relevant supplies and thus suppliers overlap. The objection to the prosecution's approach is therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Objection rejected; prosecution may continue to rely on the evidence objected to.

Orders

  • Objection by the accused to the prosecution's reliance on evidence in [72]-[75] of Schedule 7 is rejected.