Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boyle [2015] FCA 1039

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Boyle [2015] FCA 1039

The respondent's guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, lack of prior criminal history, and psychiatric condition mitigated the penalty, but the seriousness of knowingly giving false evidence warranted a fine to provide specific and general deterrence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Fine imposed; imprisonment in default
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'false or Misleading Evidence' 'deterrence' 'contrition' 'cooperation' 'no Prior Criminal History']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'false or Misleading Evidence' 'deterrence' 'contrition' 'cooperation' 'no Prior Criminal History']

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

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Sentence for knowingly giving false or misleading evidence contrary to s 155(5) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, lack of prior criminal history, and psychiatric condition mitigated the penalty, but the seriousness of knowingly giving false evidence warranted a fine to provide specific and general deterrence.

Court Disposition

Fine imposed; imprisonment in default

Orders

  • ["The respondent pay a fine of $3,500 within 3 months; in default, 2 months' imprisonment."]