Legal Research
Cases
R v Dulhunty; R v Roach

R v Dulhunty; R v Roach

Case [2015] NSWSC 1747 30 November 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dulhunty; R v Roach [2015] NSWSC 1747
Hearing dates: 26 and 27 October 2015
Date of orders: 30 November 2015
Decision date: 30 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [115] and [116]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy – Manipulation of share price by two directors of a publicly listed company – Where offending involved multiple trades and substantial monetary investment – Whether the actions of another investor mitigated the offending – Where offenders were not motivated by immediate personal gain but would likely have derived benefit in the longer term – Where neither offender had any prior convictions – Where there was extra curial punishment in the case of each offender in terms of loss of career – Good prospects of rehabilitation in each case – No real likelihood of further offending – Expressions of remorse by each offender – Early plea of guilty in each case - Where counsel for each offender accepted that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted but submitted that each offender should be immediately released on a recognisance or considered for some other sentencing option which did not require actual full time custody – Where Crown submitted that any sentence of imprisonment which was imposed should require a period of actual full time custody to be served by each offender – Where offending was serious and sustained over a long period - Necessity to maintain the integrity of financial markets – Importance of general deterrence – Term of imprisonment imposed in each case requiring a period of actual custody to be served
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Cameron v R [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cappis v R [2015] NSWCCA 138
Danial v R [2008] NSWCCA 15
DPP (Cth) v Gow [2015] NSWCCA 208
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
McMahon v R [2011] NSWCCA 147
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; (1999) 194 CLR 610
R v Boulden [2006] NSWSC 1274
R v Hinchcliffe [2013] NSWCCA 327
R v Jacobson [2014] VSC 592
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Pogson, Lapham and Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225; (2012) 82 NSWLR 60
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222; (2013) 235 A Crim R 265
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; (2007) 173 A Crim R 458
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Peter Roach - Offender
Robert Venour Dulhunty - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
S Rushton SC - Crown
H Dhanji SC and R Pontello - Offender Roach
M Thangaraj SC – Offender Dulhunty
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Charnock O’Brien – Offender Roach
Laxon Lex - Offender Dulhunty

File Number(s): 2014/235633; 2014/235644

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 Dulhunty; R v Roach

Details

AGLC: R v Dulhunty; R v Roach [2015] NSWSC 1747
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1747
Decision Date: 30 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Dulhunty and Roach, were directors of a publicly listed company and were charged with conspiracy to manipulate the company's share price through multiple trades involving substantial monetary investments. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondents, considering factors such as the nature of the offending, the absence of prior convictions, the loss of career as extra curial punishment, the prospects of rehabilitation, the lack of likelihood of reoffending, the expressions of remorse, and the early pleas of guilty. Both counsel for the respondents and the Crown agreed that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted, but they differed on whether the respondents should serve the sentence immediately in full-time custody.

The court considered the serious and sustained nature of the offending, which involved manipulation of the share price over a long period. It acknowledged the necessity to maintain the integrity of financial markets and the importance of general deterrence. The court also took into account the respondents' lack of immediate personal gain, the potential for longer-term benefit, and the expressions of remorse. However, the court emphasised the gravity of the offending and its impact on the financial markets. It concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, and that a period of actual custody should be served to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

In light of these considerations, the High Court imposed a term of imprisonment on each respondent, requiring them to serve a period of actual full-time custody. The court's decision reflected the seriousness of the offending and the need to maintain the integrity of financial markets while also considering the individual circumstances of the respondents. The final orders mandated that Dulhunty and Roach serve a specified term of imprisonment, with a requirement for a period of actual custody.

Orders