Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 8) [2021] FCA 365

Federal Court of Australia

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 8) [2021] FCA 365 File number: VID 224 of 2019

Ruling of: BROMWICH J

Date of ruling: 15 April 2021

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – objection to admissibility of file note of meeting produced under s 155 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – file note originally ruled inadmissible during pre-trial hearing – evidence subsequently adduced during trial and on voir dire as to likely authorship of document amongst three people, without identifying the specific author – prosecutor sought to tender file note after this evidence adduced – all three accused object on the basis that file note does not satisfy the requirements of s 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because the person making the relevant representations in the file note could not be identified – further objection on the basis that the evidence should be inadmissible because of unfair prejudice exceeding probative value per s 137 of the Evidence Act – held: objection rejected as to admissibility under s 69 – held: no danger of unfair prejudice in admitting file note including relevant representations

Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 155 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 44, 59, 60, 69, 137, 183

Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355; 207 FCR 448 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Flugge (No 10) [2015] VSC 690 Capital Securities XV Pty Ltd (formerly known as PrimeCapital Securities Pty Ltd) v Calleja [2018] NSWCA 26 Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 303 Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60;195 CLR 594 Lin v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 9 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965