Legal Research
Cases
R v Manasseh and Austin

R v Manasseh and Austin

Case [2002] NSWCCA 27 25 February 2002

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Appeal

Corporate Law & Governance

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v MANASSEH and AUSTIN [2002] NSWCCA 27

FILE NUMBER(S):
60149/01
60436/01
60437/01
60450/01

HEARING DATE(S): 14 September 2001
5 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 25/02/2002

PARTIES:
Maurice Showa Manasseh - First Appellant
Leslie Raymond Austin - Second Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA Simpson J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 070038/00, 07204/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bell J

COUNSEL:
DJ Hammerschlag SC/AF Fernon - First Appellant
DG Dalton - Second Appellant
P Roberts SC/PR McGuire - Crown

SOLICITORS:
Landerer & Company - First Appellant
Legal Aid Commission - Second Appellant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS LAW - false or misleading appearance of active trading in shares - Corporations Law, s998 - 'relevant transaction' - 'interest' - 'beneficial ownership' - burden of proof - appeal upheld, convictions quashed

LEGISLATION CITED:
Corporations Law
Trade Practices Act 1974
Securities Industry Act 1970 (NSW)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
Companies (Western Australia) Code
Securities Industry Code
Queensland Criminal Code

DECISION:
1. Appeals allowed
2. Crown appeals dismissed
3. Verdict against each appellant quashed
4. Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered in favour of each appellant

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60149/01
60436/01
60437/01
60450/01

SHELLER JA
SIMPSON J
HOWIE J

Monday, 25 February 2002

MANASSEH and AUSTIN v THE QUEEN

The appellants were both found guilty by a jury of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in shares on the Australian Stock Exchange (s998 of the Corporations Law). The trial Judge ordered that each appellant be released without sentence being passed upon his giving security, without sureties, by recognizance that he would be of good behaviour for a period of three years.
The appellants were business associates. The charges against the appellants were based on evidence relating to seventeen securities transactions, of which ten involved Mr Manasseh and nine involved Mr Austin. Both appellants were involved in two of the dealings. The majority of the transactions relied on by the Crown were between trust companies which held assets in trust for beneficiaries associated with Mr Manasseh, and between trust companies holding assets in trust for beneficiaries associated with Mr Austin.
Although the Crown opened a case based on common purpose, during the hearing it abandoned that case and relied upon the deeming provisions in s998(5) of the Corporations Law.
Each appellant appealed against his conviction. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentences on the ground that they were manifestly inadequate.
HELD (per Sheller JA, Simpson J and Howie J concurring):
1. The question was whether s998 applied to both principal and agent or only to the principal. The language of the provision was capable of embracing both. Section 998 applied to a person engaged in the proscribed conduct even though that person so engaged by dealing in the securities of another with or without the…

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 Manasseh and Austin

Details

AGLC: R v Manasseh and Austin [2002] NSWCCA 27
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 27
Decision Date: 25 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two defendants, Manasseh and Austin, who were charged under section 998 of the Corporations Law for engaging in a false or misleading appearance of active trading in shares. The charges arose from transactions that purported to create a misleading impression of active trading in the shares of a company. The matter was heard and determined by the court of appeal. The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the interpretation of certain terms within section 998, including the definitions of'relevant transaction', 'interest', and 'beneficial ownership', as well as the allocation of the burden of proof. The defendants argued that they had not created any misleading appearance of active trading and contested the interpretation of the statutory terms. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the defendants' actions constituted a 'relevant transaction' and whether they had an 'interest' in the shares that led to 'beneficial ownership'. Additionally, the court examined the appropriate burden of proof required for such charges under the statute.

The court of appeal found that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the statutory terms and the allocation of the burden of proof. The appellate court held that the term 'interest' under the Corporations Law should be narrowly construed to exclude indirect or contingent interests, thereby clarifying the scope of the provision. The court also determined that the burden of proof in such cases should rest on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had an interest in the shares that resulted in beneficial ownership and that their actions created a misleading appearance of active trading. Given these findings, the appellate court concluded that the convictions of Manasseh and Austin were not supported by the evidence presented, and accordingly, the convictions were quashed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of precise statutory interpretation and the correct application of the burden of proof in criminal cases under the Corporations Law.

Orders