Hartman v R

In the matter of Hartman v R, the applicant appealed against his sentence for insider trading and tipping offences, arguing that the sentences imposed were unduly severe. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of four and a half years with a non-parole period of three years. The appellant had pleaded guilty to nineteen charges of insider trading and six charges of communicating inside information, each offence carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years and/or a fine of $220,000. The appellant's appeal focused on the sentencing judge's error in considering the aspect of general deterrence and the failure to give adequate weight to the appellant's subjective circumstances. The appellant conceded the need to reflect general deterrence but argued that other matters, particularly his mental health problems, modified this aspect of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in the consideration of the general deterrence aspect and whether the subjective circumstances of the appellant warranted a lesser sentence. The court considered the need for general deterrence in insider trading offences and the subjective circumstances of the appellant, including his cooperation with authorities, future assistance, psychiatric condition, remorse, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the Ellis discount, which is a discount applied to the sentence for a defendant who has shown remorse and cooperated with authorities. The court had to determine whether the appellant's psychiatric condition was relevant to the offences and whether it was connected to the offences. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's gambling addiction was relevant to the offences and whether it was connected to the offences.

The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in the consideration of the general deterrence aspect and had failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's subjective circumstances. The court found that the appellant had shown remorse and had cooperated with authorities, and that his psychiatric condition and gambling addiction were relevant to the offences and connected to the offences. The court found that the appellant's subjective circumstances warranted a lesser sentence. The court ordered that the appellant's sentence be reduced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of two years. The court also ordered that the appellant's sentence for Count 1 be reduced to two years with a non-parole period of one year, and that the sentence for Count 20 be reduced to one year with a non-parole period of six months. The court ordered that the sentences for Counts 2-19 and Counts 21-25 be reduced to concurrent sentences of six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three months.