Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 4) [2020] FCA 1715

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 4) [2020] FCA 1715

Evidence relating to Mr Hogan's awareness of, and actions regarding, monitoring of advertised prices for DVA tender list goods is admissible, but evidence about approaches to suppliers to raise online advertising prices (if not directly part of charged conduct) is excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because its prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.

Parties
Prosecutor: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; First Accused: The Country Care Group Pty Ltd; Second Accused: Robert Martin Hogan; Third Accused: Cameron Harrison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidence Ruling
Outcome
Partial exclusion of evidence
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Online Price Monitoring, Evidence Exclusion
Criminal Law Evidence Competition Law Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Online Price Monitoring Evidence Exclusion

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

The Country Care Group Pty Ltd

First Accused

Robert Martin Hogan

Second Accused

Cameron Harrison

Third Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidence Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of uncharged alleged conduct relating to online price monitoring should be admitted or excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence relating to Mr Hogan's awareness of, and actions regarding, monitoring of advertised prices for DVA tender list goods is admissible, but evidence about approaches to suppliers to raise online advertising prices (if not directly part of charged conduct) is excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because its prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.

Court Disposition

Partial exclusion of evidence

Orders

  • Evidence of Mr Hogan's awareness of monitoring of advertised prices for DVA tender list goods and online price checking or monitoring is allowed.
  • Evidence of uncharged conduct relating to approaches to suppliers to raise advertising prices outside alleged conduct is excluded.