Legal Research
Cases
Curtis v The Queen

Curtis v The Queen

Case [2014] NSWSC 1392 10 October 2014

Conspiracy

Insider Trading

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Curtis v R [2014] NSWSC 1392
Hearing dates: 18/08/2014
Decision date: 10 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Temporary stay granted

Catchwords: Application for temporary stay of proceedings - conspiracy to commit insider trading offence - access to transcript of applicant's compulsory examination under s 19(2) of the ASIC Act
Legislation Cited: Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)
Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bartlett v The Queen (No 10) [2014] WASC 277
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; 213 CLR 543
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 33; 214 CLR 269
Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; 308 ALR 252
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc v City of Swan [2010] HCA 11; 240 CLR 509
R v Catena (No 3) 2013 WASC 97
R v Seller [2013] NSWCCA 42; 273 FLR 155
R v X [2014] NSWCCA 168
Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42; 220 CLR 129
Smith v The Queen [2007] WASCA 163; 35 WAR 201; 175 A Crim R 528
X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29, (2013) 248 CLR 92
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Oliver Peter Curtis (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Thangaraj SC/R Higgins (Applicant)
OP Holdenson QC/L Crowley/G Hill (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Clifford Chance (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/12117

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The applicant was arraigned in this Court on 7 February 2014 on an indictment alleging that between 1 May 2007 and 30 June 2008 he conspired with John Joseph Hartman to commit an insider trading offence being a contravention of ss 1311(1) and 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

His trial is listed to commence on 17 November 2014.

By notice of motion dated 10 July 2014 the applicant seeks an order for a temporary stay of his trial pending an assurance from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("the CDPP"), the respondent to the motion, that those who were involved in the investigation leading to the laying of the charge, including but not limited to employees, officers or members of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC"), and those who currently have the carriage of the preparations for trial (again, including but not limited to employees, officers or members of ASIC and including officers of the CDPP and counsel retained by the CDPP to present the case at trial), are prevented from having any ongoing involvement with the trial if they had any direct or derivative access to the transcript of the applicant's…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Curtis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Curtis v The Queen [2014] NSWSC 1392
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1392
Decision Date: 10 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Curtis v The Queen, the applicant sought a temporary stay of proceedings related to an insider trading offence. The applicant argued that they should have access to the transcript of their compulsory examination under section 19(2) of the ASIC Act to adequately prepare their defence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation of section 19(2) of the ASIC Act and whether it allows the applicant to access their own transcript. The court needed to determine if the applicant's right to a fair trial under section 80 of the Constitution was being compromised by the denial of access to the transcript. The court also considered the balance between the applicant's right to a fair trial and the statutory provisions that govern the examination process.

The court found that section 19(2) of the ASIC Act does not explicitly grant the applicant access to their own transcript. However, the court emphasised the importance of a fair trial and the principle of open justice. The court held that in the interest of justice, the applicant should have access to their own transcript. This decision ensured that the applicant could adequately prepare their defence and maintain the integrity of the legal process.

The final orders of the court granted the applicant access to their own transcript, ensuring that the applicant could effectively defend themselves against the insider trading charges. The decision underscored the importance of the right to a fair trial and the need for a balanced approach in interpreting statutory provisions related to compulsory examinations.

Orders