Legal Research
Cases
R v Bateson

R v Bateson

Case [2011] NSWSC 643 24 June 2011

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bateson [2011] NSWSC 643
Hearing dates: 14.02.2011, 3.03.2011, 11.03.2011, 25.03.2011, 03.06.2011
Decision date: 24 June 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: BUDDIN J
Decision:
1. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years to commence on 6 July 2011 and to expire on 5 July 2013.
2. Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 , I direct that the sentence is to be served by way of an intensive correction order.
3. In addition the offender is to pay a fine of $70,000.

Catchwords: Criminal Law - sentencing offence of insider trading - "true insider" - plea of guilty and other favourable subjective features
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008
Crimes Amendment Regulations 2010 (Cth) (No.4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Aitken v Moten-Connor (Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported, 9 February 1995
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Dimitrovski v Jones (Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported 23 August 1994)
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Douar v The Queen (2005) 159 A Crim R 154
DPP v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
DPP v Karazisis & others [2010] VSCA 350
DPP v Nikolic [2008] VSCA 226
DPP v O'Reilly [2010] VSC 138
Einfeld v R (2010) 266 ALR 598
Hili and Jones v R (2010) 272 ALR 465
R v Dalzell [2011] NSWSC 454
R v De Silva [2011] NSWSC 243
R v Doff [2005] NSWSC 50
R v Doff (2005) 54 ACSR 200; [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v El Rashid (NSWCCA unreported, 7 April 1995)
R v Foster [2001] NSWCCA 215
R v Frawley [2005] NSWSC 585
R v Firns (2001) 51 NSWLR 548
R v Hall (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 890
R v Hallocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67
R v Hannes (2000) 36 ACSR 72
R v Hannes (2002) 173 FLR 1
R v Hartman [2010] NSWSC 1422
R v Hinton (2002) 134 A Crim R 286
R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18
R v Lanteri [2006] VSC 225
R v McKay (2007) 61 ACSR 470
R v McQuoid [2009] EWCA Crim 1301; [2009] 4 All ER 388
R v Maslen and Shaw (1995) 79 A Crim R 199
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Panchal [2009] QDC 105
R v Rivkin (2003) 198 ALR 400
R v Rivkin (2004) 184 FLR 365
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Rich v ASIC (2004) 220 CLR 129
Spies v R (2000) 173 ALR 529
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Jeffery Bateson
Representation: Counsel:
R Bromwich SC (Crown)
L Robberds QC/M Friedgut (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of public Prosecutions
Addisons (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/121999

Judgment

Introduction

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 R v Bateson

Details

AGLC: R v Bateson [2011] NSWSC 643
Case: [2011] NSWSC 643
Decision Date: 24 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bateson arose before the High Court, where the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of insider trading. The primary issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate sentence for the offence, which involved the defendant trading on confidential information, making him a "true insider". The court was tasked with considering not only the statutory provisions but also the sentencing principles relevant to insider trading and the subjective factors that might influence the severity of the penalty.

The central legal issue was how to apply the sentencing principles to the offence of insider trading, particularly in light of the defendant's plea of guilty and other favourable subjective features. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of proportionality and individualisation, taking into account the defendant's cooperation and remorse. The High Court also had to interpret the term "true insider" and its implications for the sentencing.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of considering the subjective features of the case, including the defendant's plea of guilty and his level of remorse. The court noted that these factors could mitigate the sentence, even though the offence of insider trading was serious and warranted significant punishment. The High Court held that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence should be severe enough to deter others but also fair to the individual defendant.

The final orders of the court resulted in a sentence that, while significant, was adjusted downwards to reflect the defendant's guilty plea and other favourable subjective features. The court's decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing for insider trading offences, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime while also considering individual circumstances.

Orders