Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 136

Jones v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 136

In criminal contempt proceedings, it is impermissible for the court to reason adversely against the accused for failing to call witnesses under the Jones v Dunkel principle, as there is no expectation the accused will call all relevant evidence. Further, sentencing for contempt must be based only on distinctly charged conduct. Due to the flawed application of Jones v Dunkel and irregularity in the statement of charge, the appeal should be allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted for further consideration; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
['jones V Dunkel Inference' 'evidentiary Inferences' 'interlocutory Orders' 'contempt—breach of Court Order' 'standard of Proof in Contempt' 'civil Vs Criminal Contempt']
['contempt of Court' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jones V Dunkel Inference' 'evidentiary Inferences' 'interlocutory Orders' 'contempt—breach of Court Order' 'standard of Proof in Contempt' 'civil Vs Criminal Contempt']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Jones v Dunkel inference may be drawn against the accused in contempt proceedings where the criminal standard applies' 'Whether it was permissible to sentence the accused on conduct not explicitly charged']

Ratio Decidendi

In criminal contempt proceedings, it is impermissible for the court to reason adversely against the accused for failing to call witnesses under the Jones v Dunkel principle, as there is no expectation the accused will call all relevant evidence. Further, sentencing for contempt must be based only on distinctly charged conduct. Due to the flawed application of Jones v Dunkel and irregularity in the statement of charge, the appeal should be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; matter remitted for further consideration; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed and the judgment below set aside.' "The ACCC's application of 28 May 2010 be remitted for further consideration at first instance." "The ACCC pay Mr Jones' costs of the appeal to this Court."]