Commissioner for Fair Trading v Garay & Ors [2005] NSWSC 647

Commissioner for Fair Trading v Garay & Ors [2005] NSWSC 647

The offender's contempts were serious because the breaches were wilful, deliberate, repeated over an extended period, designed to thwart Supreme Court orders, and the second set was committed while the first contempt proceedings were already on foot. Although the offender had pleaded guilty and had significant favourable subjective factors, the need to vindicate the authority of the courts, punish, deter and denounce the conduct required a custodial sentence; taking account of totality and special circumstances, the sentences were ordered to be served by periodic detention with an effective non-parole period of 12 months and overall sentence of 16 months.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Offender sentenced for eight charges of contempt; sentences to be served by periodic detention; costs ordered for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['breach of Supreme Court Injunctive Orders' 'unlicensed Residential Building Work' 'periodic Detention' 'non Parole Period' 'costs']
['contempt of Court' 'sentencing' 'consumer and Fair Trading Regulation' 'home Building Regulation'] ['breach of Supreme Court Injunctive Orders' 'unlicensed Residential Building Work' 'periodic Detention' 'non Parole Period' 'costs']

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

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for eight wilful contempts constituted by repeated breaches of Supreme Court orders restraining residential building work and related representations.' "Whether the offender's guilty pleas, contrition, mental health, gambling problem, good character and prospects of rehabilitation warranted moderation of sentence." 'Whether a custodial sentence, and if so periodic detention, was required to vindicate the authority of the Court and deter further contempts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's contempts were serious because the breaches were wilful, deliberate, repeated over an extended period, designed to thwart Supreme Court orders, and the second set was committed while the first contempt proceedings were already on foot. Although the offender had pleaded guilty and had significant favourable subjective factors, the need to vindicate the authority of the courts, punish, deter and denounce the conduct required a custodial sentence; taking account of totality and special circumstances, the sentences were ordered to be served by periodic detention with an effective non-parole period of 12 months and overall sentence of 16 months.

Court Disposition

Offender sentenced for eight charges of contempt; sentences to be served by periodic detention; costs ordered for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['For each of the four contempt charges in the first set of proceedings, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for four months, to be served concurrently.' 'For each of the four contempt charges in the second set of proceedings, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 8 months commencing immediately...