Legal Research
Cases
R v Joffe; R v Stromer

R v Joffe; R v Stromer

Case [2015] NSWSC 741 12 June 2015

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

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 Joffe; R v Stromer [2015] NSWSC 741
Hearing dates: 25, 26, 28 May 2015
Decision date: 12 June 2015
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Joffe:
Count 1: sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year 3 months dating from 12 June 2015.
Count 2 (and taking into account the offence on the s 16BA Form): sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year 9 months dating from 12 December 2015.
Order the offender's release forthwith on recognizance upon giving security without surety in the sum of $1000 upon the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years 3 months from 12 June 2015.
Stromer:
Count 3: sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year 3 months dating from 12 June 2015.
Count 4: sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year 6 months dating from 12 December 2015.
Order the offender's release forthwith on recognizance upon giving security without surety in the sum of $1000 upon the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years from 12 June 2015.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence - insider trading offences – co-offenders – guilty pleas – offences assessed below the midrange of seriousness and just within midrange of seriousness – whether full time custody appropriate - where offenders have strong subjective cases – relevance of delay in investigation and prosecution of offences – impact of mental health issues on moral culpability – sentences partially accumulated – suspended sentences imposed
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Div 3 Pt 7.10, ss 1043A(1)(c) 1043A(1)(d), 1311(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 17A, 16A(1)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) s 320(a)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
DSJ v R; NS v R [2012] NSWCCA 9
DSJ v R; NS v R [2014] NSWCCA 77
Hartman v DPP [2011] NSWCCA 261; 87 ACSR 52
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Joffe v R; Stromer v R [2012] NSWCCA 277
Joffe v The Queen; Stromer v The Queen [2013] HCATrans 109
Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119; 54 ACSR 200
R v Hill; R v Kamay [2015] VSC 86
R v McKay [2007] NSWSC 275; 61 ACSR 470
R v Rivkin [2003] NSWSC 447; 198 ALR 400
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Daniel Shayne Joffe
Nathan Stromer
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Rushton SC with Mr R Ranken (Crown)
Mr T Game SC with Ms G Bashir SC (Joffe)
Mr H Dhanji SC with Mr S Buchen (Stromer)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Uther Webster & Evans (Joffe)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Stromer)

File Number(s): 2010/34654; 2010/40493

Judgment

Daniel Shayne Joffe has pleaded guilty to two counts of procuring Nathan Stromer to acquire relevant securities whilst in possession of inside information, contrary to ss 1043A(1)(d) and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act

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 Joffe; R v Stromer

Details

AGLC: R v Joffe; R v Stromer [2015] NSWSC 741
Case: [2015] NSWSC 741
Decision Date: 12 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two defendants, Joffe and Stromer, who were charged with insider trading offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Both defendants had entered guilty pleas, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for their respective offences. The primary legal issue was whether full-time custody was justified for these co-offenders, given that their offences were assessed below the midrange of seriousness and just within the midrange of seriousness.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. It took into account the defendants' strong subjective cases for leniency, the delay in the investigation and prosecution of the offences, and the impact of mental health issues on the defendants' moral culpability. The court found that while the offences were serious, the circumstances surrounding the case warranted a more lenient approach. Consequently, the court decided that partially accumulated sentences would be appropriate, with suspended sentences imposed for both defendants. This decision reflected the unique circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors presented by the defendants.

In summary, the court determined that the defendants' sentences should reflect the mitigating factors and the unique circumstances of the case. The imposition of partially accumulated sentences with suspended sentences was seen as an appropriate response to the seriousness of the offences while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The final orders of the court were that Joffe and Stromer be sentenced to partially accumulated sentences, with the sentences being suspended, reflecting the court's balanced approach to the sentencing considerations presented.

Orders