R v MANASSEH and AUSTIN [2002] NSWCCA 27

R v MANASSEH and AUSTIN [2002] NSWCCA 27

The appeals were allowed because the Crown's case relying on s998(5)(a) and s998(7) required identification of the persons said to have unchanged beneficial ownership or a continuing interest in the securities, and the trial judge's general directions on beneficial ownership and interest left the jury to decide matters on insufficient and inadequately explained material. That failure caused a miscarriage of justice, and because it was not known on which transactions or deeming limb the jury relied, the convictions were quashed and acquittals directed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeals Against Convictions and Crown Appeals Against Sentences / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Jury Convictions in the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Crown appeals dismissed; verdicts quashed; judgments and verdicts of acquittal directed for each appellant.
Legal Topics
['false or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Shares' 'corporations Law, S998' 'beneficial Ownership' 'interest in Securities' 'deeming Provisions' 'burden of Proof' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'corporations Law' 'securities Regulation'] ['false or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Shares' 'corporations Law, S998' 'beneficial Ownership' 'interest in Securities' 'deeming Provisions' 'burden of Proof' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeals Against Convictions and Crown Appeals Against Sentences / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Jury Convictions in the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s998 of the Corporations Law applied to a person who entered into or carried out securities transactions as agent or only to the principal.' 'Whether the Crown had to prove that the appellants knew or intended that a false or misleading appearance was likely to be created.' 'Whether s998(5)(a) and s998(7) applied where the transactions allegedly did not involve a change in beneficial ownership of securities.' "Whether the trial judge's directions on beneficial ownership and interest were adequate." 'Whether the jury had to agree unanimously on the same transaction under the reasoning in KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were allowed because the Crown's case relying on s998(5)(a) and s998(7) required identification of the persons said to have unchanged beneficial ownership or a continuing interest in the securities, and the trial judge's general directions on beneficial ownership and interest left the jury to decide matters on insufficient and inadequately explained material. That failure caused a miscarriage of justice, and because it was not known on which transactions or deeming limb the jury relied, the convictions were quashed and acquittals directed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Crown appeals dismissed; verdicts quashed; judgments and verdicts of acquittal directed for each appellant.

Orders

  • ['Appeals allowed' 'Crown appeals dismissed' 'Verdict against each appellant quashed' 'Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered in favour of each appellant']