Legal Research
Cases
R v Curtis (No 3)

R v Curtis (No 3)

Case [2016] NSWSC 866 24 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 866
Hearing dates: Dates of trial: 11, 12, 16,18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31 May; 1, 2 June 2016.Proceedings on sentence: 17 June 2016.
Date of orders: 24 June 2016
Decision date: 24 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Offender convicted of the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring contrary to ss 1311(1)(a) and 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years commencing on 24 June 2016 and expiring on 23 June 2018 with a recognisance release order directing his release after serving one year of imprisonment.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence – conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring – where offending assessed to be of high objective seriousness – significance of delay – primacy to be given to punishment and general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 11.5(1)
Cases Cited: Hartman v R [2011] NSWCCA 261
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Kamay v R [2015] VSCA 296
Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323
R v Curtis (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 795
R v De Silva [2011] NSWSC 243
R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119
R v El Rashid Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 60682 of 1994, 7 April 1995
R v Fowler [2003] NSWCCA 321;151 A Crim R 166
R v Fysh [2012] NSWSC 1587
R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131
R v Joffe & Stromer [2015] NSWSC 741; 106 ASCR 525
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCC 527
R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328 at 330.
R v Rivkin [2004] NSWCCA 7; (2004) 184 FLR 365
R v Whilhelm [2010] NSWSC 378
R v Xiao [2016] NSWSC 240 at [90]
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
Scook v The Queen [2008] WASCA 114
Category: Sentence
Parties: Oliver Peter Curtis (Offender)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Thangaraj SC, R Higgins (Offender)
D Staehli SC, L Crowley (Crown)
Solicitors:
Clifford Chance (Offender)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/11107
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Oliver Curtis has been found guilty by a jury of an offence of conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring contrary to ss 1311(1)(a) and 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). He now stands to be sentenced for that offence. Section 1043A(1)(d) prohibits a person who possesses inside information from procuring another person to acquire or dispose of relevant Division 3 financial products; s 1311(1) criminalises such conduct.
The offence of conspiracy to commit an offence is punishable as if the offence to which the conspiracy relates had been committed. [1] At the time of Mr Curtis’s offending, the offence of insider procuring carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years or a…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 866
Case: [2016] NSWSC 866
Decision Date: 24 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Curtis and another person who were charged with conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence of insider procuring. The court needed to consider the objective seriousness of the offending, the significance of the delay in the proceedings, and the principles of punishment and general deterrence.

The court emphasised that the objective seriousness of the offending was a crucial factor in determining the sentence. It noted that the offence involved a breach of trust and was likely to have a significant impact on the integrity of the financial markets. The court also considered the significance of the delay in the proceedings, but ultimately found that this factor did not outweigh the importance of the other considerations. The court held that the principles of punishment and general deterrence should be given primacy in sentencing, particularly in cases involving serious offending. The court concluded that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offending and act as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to engage in similar conduct.

The court ordered that Curtis be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the specific length of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The court also noted that the sentence should be commensurate with the objective seriousness of the offending and should reflect the importance of punishment and general deterrence. The court's decision in this case provides important guidance for sentencing in cases involving serious financial crimes, and highlights the importance of considering the principles of punishment and deterrence in determining appropriate sentences.

Orders