The Full Court of the Federal Court has upheld the appeal of Darryl Jones, principal of the Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, against orders of the Federal Court.
On 19 November 2010, Chief Justice Keane and Justices Dowsett and Reeves set aside the orders of Justice Logan made on 17 August 2010 that found Mr Jones guilty on four charges of contempt of the interlocutory orders made on 5 March 2010.
The first three charges brought by the ACCC involved representations about health treatments made on the reactivated Darryl Jones Health Resolution Centre website, in an electronic book sold through that site, and on the newly created Fellowship of Faith Hope and Healing website. The ACCC alleged that Mr Jones was responsible for making representations in circumstances that contravened the interlocutory orders.
The fourth charge of contempt related to Mr Jones' alleged failure to provide a client list to the ACCC which fully complied with the interlocutory orders.
Justice Logan had originally sentenced Mr Jones to six months jail for each of the first three charges, each to be suspended after one month, and one month jail for failing to provide a compliant client list, all sentences to be served concurrently. Mr Jones appealed the contempt findings.
"The ACCC is vigilant in monitoring compliance with any court order," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said today. "This judgment will naturally change the way we seek to ensure court orders are complied with, but we will not be dissuaded from bringing contempt proceedings where we believe court orders have been breached."
On 5 March 2010, Mr Jones was restrained from making claims that his treatments can prevent or treat the growth of cancer or any medical condition, until the court makes further orders. Mr Jones must first obtain written advice from an appropriately qualified professional certifying that the proposed treatment is, in the opinion of that person, supported by reliable scientific or expert medical opinion and is believed to be effective and safe. The advice must be disclosed to his clients, customers and the ACCC.
These interlocutory orders were not the subject of appeal and are unaffected by the Full Court's judgment. The substantive case brought by the ACCC has been set down for trial in late January 2011.