Legal Research
Cases
R v O'Halloran

R v O'Halloran

Case [2000] NSWSC 704 7 July 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v O'HALLORAN [2000] NSWSC 704

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70065/99

HEARING DATE(S): 13/06/00, 14/06/00, 15/06/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 7 July 2000

PARTIES :

R v James Francis O'HALLORAN

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Cth DPP: TA Game SC
Applicant: C Waterstreet

SOLICITORS: Cth DPP: J Austin
Applicant: Holman Webb

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - whether in the circumstances of the case there was a need of Constitutional power enabling the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute for an offence against the Corporations Law of New South Wales. - Criminal Law - whether indictment bad for duplicity. - Criminal Law - s 998 Corporations Law - doing anything intended or likely to create a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for or the price of securities - whether instructing a stockbroker to sell shares at certain prices is "doing any thing". - Criminal Law - whether prosecution in part an abuse of process.

LEGISLATION CITED: Broadcasting and Television Act 1965
Constitution s 51(i), 51(v), 51(xx)
Corporations Act 1989 (Commonwealth) ss 82,
Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1980 ss 7, 28(1)(a), 29, 30(1), 31(1), 33.
Corporations Law s 998

CASES CITED: Actors & Announcers Equity Association v Fontana Films (1982) 150 CLR 169
Bank of New South Wales v The Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1
The Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales (1949) 79 CLR 497
Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1
DPP (Vic) v Williams [1993] 1 VLR 238
Fenwick v Jeffries Industries Ltd, Cohen J, 18.8.95
Herald and Weekly Times v The Commonwealth (1966) 115 CLR 418
Hospital Provident Fund Pty Limited v State of Victoria (1952-1953) 87 CLR 1
The Queen v Hughes [2000] HCA 22
Re Ku-Ring-Gai Co-operative Building Society (No 12) Limited (1978) 22 ALR 621
Murphy v Farmer (1988) 165 CLR 19
North v Marra Developments Limited (1981) 148 CLR 42
R v Federal Court of Australia; ex parte WA National Football League (Adamson) (1979) 143 CLR 170
Refern v Dunlop Rubber (1964) 110 CLR 194
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529
State Superannuation Board v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282
Western Union Telegraph Co v Foster 247 US 105 (1918)

DECISION: Motion dismissed. This order certified as a proper one for determination on appeal.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 7 July 2000
70065/99 - REGINA v James Francis O’HALLORAN
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: This is a motion to quash an indictment. The applicant, James Francis O’Halloran, is charged under s 998 Corporations Law with having done something that was intended to create a false or misleading appearance with respect to the price of securities of Jeffries Industries Limited in that he instructed Clive Powell to sell 170,000 shares held by Fame Decorator Agencies Pty Limited in Jeffries Industries Limited down to a price of thirteen cents.
2 The Crown intends to put its…

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 O'Halloran

Details

AGLC: R v O'HALLORAN [2000] NSWSC 704
Case: [2000] NSWSC 704
Decision Date: 7 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v O'Halloran involved the defendant, O'Halloran, being prosecuted for offences against the Corporations Law of New South Wales. The prosecution was brought by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The key issues in the case were whether the Commonwealth had the constitutional power to prosecute for an offence under the Corporations Law and whether the indictment was defective due to duplicity. Additionally, the court had to determine if instructing a stockbroker to sell shares at certain prices constituted "doing anything" as defined in section 998 of the Corporations Law. The defendant also argued that the prosecution was, in part, an abuse of process.

The High Court examined the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth's prosecution under the Corporations Law. The Court found that the Commonwealth had the requisite constitutional power to prosecute for offences against state corporations laws when those laws are implemented as part of a national scheme under the corporations power. The Court also addressed the issue of duplicity in the indictment, determining that the indictment was not bad for duplicity as it clearly set out the charges against the defendant. Regarding the definition of "doing anything" in section 998 of the Corporations Law, the Court held that instructing a stockbroker to sell shares at certain prices did indeed constitute "doing anything" as it was a form of conduct that was intended or likely to create a false or misleading appearance in the market. Lastly, the Court dismissed the argument that the prosecution was an abuse of process, finding that the prosecution was not an improper use of the court's process.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the constitutional power of the Commonwealth to prosecute for offences under the Corporations Law, rejected the argument of duplicity in the indictment, and found that the defendant's conduct constituted "doing anything" under the Corporations Law. The Court also dismissed the claim that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The final orders of the Court would have confirmed the validity of the prosecution and likely proceeded with the case on its merits.

Orders