Curtis v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 299

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Curtis v R [2016] NSWCCA 299
Hearing dates: 19 October 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Before: Payne JA at [1];
Price J at [73];
Davies J at [74].
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 11.5 – whether verdict unreasonable – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 1042A, 1042D, 1043A, 1311
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 5.6, 11.5
Cases Cited: Ansari v R (2010) 241 CLR 299; [2010] HCA 18
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v LK; R v RK (2010) 241 CLR 177; [2010] HCA 17
R v Mansfield (2011) 251 FLR 286; [2011] WASCA 132
R v Wright [1980] VR 593
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35
Texts Cited: Lyon and du Plessis, The Law of Insider Trading in Australia (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2005)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Oliver Peter Curtis (appellant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Walker SC, N Owens SC, Dr R Higgins (appellant)
W Abraham QC, L Crowley, R Ranken (respondent)
Solicitors:
Clifford Chance (appellant)
CDPP (respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/12117
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common law Division

Date of Decision:

2 June 2016

Before:

McCallum J

File Number(s):

2013/12117

headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 2 June 2016, the appellant Oliver Curtis was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit insider trading. The Crown case at trial was that Mr Curtis and Mr John Hartman were good friends. Mr Hartman was an equities dealer who worked for Orion Asset Management Limited. Over time, Mr Hartman observed that the stock market trading he carried out as part of his employment would sometimes affect the share price on the Australian Stock Exchange for the stocks he traded. Mr Hartman gave evidence that he engaged in insider trading of his own accord, using information from his employer, Orion.

Mr Hartman told Mr Curtis what he had observed, and together they agreed to take advantage of that inside information. The Crown case was that Mr Hartman would, from time to time, use a Blackberry device (purchased for him by Mr Curtis) to “pin” instructions to Mr Curtis about shares he would be trading in on behalf of Orion, where Mr Hartman knew or believed that the trading would affect the price of those shares. Mr Curtis would then “front-run” those shares by buying Contracts for Difference, and selling them before Mr Hartman completed Orion’s trading in those shares. The Crown alleged that the men acted on this agreement on…

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 [2016] NSWCCA 299
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 299
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Curtis was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring, contrary to section 11.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The conviction related to Curtis's role in a scheme involving the unlawful disclosure of information regarding a proposed merger between two companies. Curtis appealed against the conviction on the ground that it was unreasonable. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the conviction was open to the jury on the evidence presented. Curtis argued that the evidence did not establish that he had conspired with another person to procure insider information, as required by the statute. The court was required to examine the evidence and determine whether it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the evidence showed that Curtis had agreed with another person to obtain insider information and had taken steps to do so. The court held that the evidence was not so unsatisfactory as to make the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction was open to the jury on the evidence presented.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders