R v I R Hall (No 2) - [2005] NSWSC 890

CITATION:
Regina v I R Hall [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 890

HEARING DATE(S): 15/12/04
17/12/04
21-24/2/05
2/3/05
14/3/05
24/3/05
21-22/4/05
2/5/05
4-5/5/05
10/5/05
10/6/05
14/6/05
21/6/05
23/6/05
12/8/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

9 September 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF:
Kirby J

DECISION:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 1 month commencing on 9 September 2005 and ending on 8 October 2007. Order that he be released on 8 September 2006 upon giving security in the sum of $5,000 without surety by recognisance to be of good behaviour during the balance of term.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure - sentence - white collar crime - insider trading - company director - traded after receiving adverse auditor's report - plea - but not admit knew insider trading - age - delay - hardship to family - civil penalty findings - effect on character.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Corporations Act 2001
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629
R v El Rashid (unreported, NSW CCA, 7.4.95)
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
Signato v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Sharma (2002) 130 A Crim R 238
R v Atholwood (1999) 109 A Crim R 465
R v Dietrich (1992) 177 CLR 292
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
R v Maslen & Shaw (1995) 79 A Crim R 199
R v Hinton (2002) 134 A Crim R 286
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
R v Hannes (2002) 173 FLR 1
R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v Frawley [2005] NSWSC 585
R v Rivkin [2003] NSWSC 447

PARTIES:
Regina
Ian Robert Hall

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2003/45

COUNSEL:
P W Neil SC (Crown)
D McBryde (Offender)

SOLICITORS:
Ms K Marinos - Cth DPP (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

JUSTICE DAVID KIRBY

Friday 9 September 2005

2003/45 REGINA v Ian Robert HALL
JUDGMENT [No 2] - REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: On 7 July 2004, Ian Robert Hall pleaded guilty before Davidson AJ to the following offence:

Corporations Act

(i) was not generally available; and

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v I R Hall (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 890
Decision Date: 9 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v I R Hall (No 2) involved the respondent, a company director, who was prosecuted for insider trading. The respondent had traded shares in his company after receiving an adverse auditor's report but before the information was made public. The respondent entered a plea of guilty but did not admit he knew the trading was insider trading. The respondent argued that his advanced age, the delay in prosecution, and the hardship caused to his family should be taken into account during sentencing. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the civil penalty findings and their impact on the respondent's character.

The legal issues before the court included the proper approach to sentencing in cases of white-collar crime, the significance of the delay in prosecution, and the weight to be given to the respondent's age and the impact on his family. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the civil penalty findings on the respondent's character and the appropriate balance between deterrence and rehabilitation in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary consideration in sentencing was the need for deterrence and denunciation in cases of white-collar crime. While the delay in prosecution and the respondent's age were relevant factors, they did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. The court also found that the civil penalty findings did not preclude a custodial sentence but should be considered in determining the appropriate penalty. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to achieve the aims of deterrence and denunciation. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the integrity of the financial markets.

Orders