Legal Research
Cases
R v Curtis (No 2)

R v Curtis (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWSC 795 15 June 2016

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Curtis (No 2)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWSC 795
Hearing Date(s):	25, 26 May 2016
Date of Orders:	26 May 2016
Decision Date:	15 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	McCallum J
Decision:	Accused’s application for a directed verdict dismissed; accused’s application for an order dismissing the conspiracy charge dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIME – conspiracy to commit offence of insider procuring contrary to s 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – application for a directed verdict – content of requirement for Crown to prove that the alleged inside information was material where conspiracy charged – whether element of materiality capable of being established on the evidence – whether there was evidence on which the jury could properly find the insider knew the information was material – whether there was evidence on which the jury could properly find the accused intended that the offence of insider procuring would be committed pursuant to the agreement CRIME – conspiracy – power to dismiss charge where it is in the interests of justice to do so – where accused alleges substantive charges could have been preferred instead of conspiracy charge – whether interests of justice require that charge of conspiracy be dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; 300 FLR 323 May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 R v Curtis [2016] NSWSC 660 R v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32 R v Mok (1987) 27 A Crim R 438 R v Shepherd (1988) 37 A Crim R 303 The Queen v LK [2010] HCA 17; 241 CLR 177
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Oliver Peter Curtis (Accused) Regina (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: M Thangaraj SC, R Higgins (Accused) D Staehli SC, L Crowley (Crown) Solicitors: Clifford Chance (Accused) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):	2013/11107
Publication Restriction:	None

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: Oliver Curtis was tried by jury for an offence of conspiracy to commit an offence relating to inside information, being the contravention of s 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Loosely speaking, that section prohibits a person who has inside information from procuring someone else to buy or sell relevant financial products (that description is neither accurate nor complete but serves to introduce the issues addressed in this judgment). It is convenient for the purpose of this judgment to refer to the conduct prohibited under s 1043A(1)(d) as the offence of insider procuring.
At the close of the Crown case, Mr Curtis made two applications:
(a)an application for a directed verdict on the basis that there was a defect in the evidence led by the Crown such that, taken at its highest, it would not sustain a verdict of guilty and there was no case to be considered by the jury;
(b)an application for an order that the conspiracy charge be dismissed in the…

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 Curtis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 795
Case: [2016] NSWSC 795
Decision Date: 15 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Curtis (No 2) involved an application for a directed verdict on charges of conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring under section 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The applicant, Curtis, contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Crown to support the charge of conspiracy. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Crown had proven that the alleged inside information was material and whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the accused knew the information was material and intended that the offence of insider procuring would be committed. Additionally, the court had to determine if the interests of justice required the dismissal of the conspiracy charge in favour of substantive charges.

The court considered the definition of materiality in the context of insider information, examining whether the Crown had discharged the burden of proving that the information was material. The court held that materiality was an essential element of the offence of insider procuring and could be established on the evidence. The court found that there was evidence on which the jury could properly find that the insider knew the information was material and intended that the offence would be committed. Regarding the conspiracy charge, the court held that it had the power to dismiss the charge if it was in the interests of justice to do so. However, the court determined that the interests of justice did not require the dismissal of the conspiracy charge in favour of substantive charges.

The court ultimately rejected the application for a directed verdict, finding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to consider the charges. The court did not dismiss the conspiracy charge, holding that it was appropriate to proceed with the conspiracy charge rather than substantive charges. The court did not provide specific final orders in the extract, but it was clear that the case would proceed to trial on the conspiracy charge.

Orders