R v Hull

Case [2016] NSWSC 634 3 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hull [2016] NSWSC 634
Hearing dates: 17 March 2016
Date of orders: 03 June 2016
Decision date: 03 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(a) in respect of Count 1 on the indictment I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of six months commencing 3 June 2016 and expiring 2 December 2016;

(b) in respect of Count 2 I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of ten months commencing 3 September 2016 and expiring 2 July 2017;

(c) in respect of Count 3 and taking into account the offence on the s 16BA schedule I sentence you to a period of eleven months commencing 3 December 2016 and expiring 2 November 2017.
(d) I order that you be released after serving a period of seven months imprisonment upon giving security by way of recognisance in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months commencing on 2 January 2017.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – insider trading offences – guilty pleas – offences assessed below the midrange of seriousness – offender as tippee – offending over a five month period – three different target companies – substantial investments - early pleas and co-operation with law enforcement agencies – effect of sentence on family of offender - exceptional circumstances demonstrated – wife’s serious mental health issues – offender not an Australian citizen and liable to deportation – remorse demonstrated – strong subjective case - sentence of imprisonment warranted
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhuang [2015] VSCA 96
DPP (Cth) v Gregory [2011] VSCA 145; [2011] 34 VR 1; 211 A Crim R 147
Kamay v R [2015] VSCA 296; (2015) 109 ACSR 611
Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; (2013) 237 A Crim R 221
Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; (2010) 200 A Crim R 510
R v Glynatsis [2013] NSWCCA 131; (2013) 230 A Crim R 99
R v Hartman [2010] NSWSC 1422; (2010) 81 ACSR 121
R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68
R v Pogson, Lapham & Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225; (2012) 82 NSWLR 60
R v Richard [2011] NSWSC 866
R v Scook [2008] WASCA 114
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222; (2013) 235 A Crim R 265
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Michael William Hull
Representation:
Counsel:
L Crowley (Crown)
T Game SC & S Buchen (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Wheeldon Solicitor (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/110592

Judgment

On 6 November 2015 Michael William Hull pleaded guilty to three counts of insider trading as follows:

1. Between about 8 September 2010 and 11 October 2010 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, acquired…

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 Hull

Details

AGLC: R v Hull [2016] NSWSC 634
Case: [2016] NSWSC 634
Decision Date: 03 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hull involved the appellant, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of insider trading. The appellant was found to have engaged in illegal trading activities over a period of five months, involving substantial investments across three different companies. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these offences, considering various mitigating and aggravating factors. Key issues included the severity of the offences, the appellant's role as a tippee, the timing and extent of his cooperation with law enforcement, and the personal circumstances impacting his family and future.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offences, noting that while the appellant's actions were deliberate and spanned a considerable period, they were below the midrange in terms of severity. The judge acknowledged the appellant's early guilty pleas and his cooperation with authorities, which were significant mitigating factors. The personal hardships faced by the appellant's family, particularly his wife's serious mental health issues, were also considered. Furthermore, the potential deportation of the appellant, who was not an Australian citizen, added a layer of complexity to the sentencing. The court recognised the appellant's demonstrated remorse and the strong subjective case for a custodial sentence, ultimately concluding that imprisonment was warranted to uphold the integrity of the financial markets and deter similar conduct.

In arriving at its decision, the court balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors presented. The judge highlighted the substantial impact of the appellant's actions on the market and the importance of sending a clear message against insider trading. Despite the personal hardships, the court found that the gravity of the offences and the appellant's culpability required a sentence of imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence that, while considering the personal circumstances, maintained the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the exceptional personal circumstances of the appellant and his family. The court's decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account both the legal and personal factors presented.

Orders