Regina v Fysh (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1390

Regina v Fysh (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1390

The no case submission on materiality failed because the accused's submissions identified potential weaknesses in the Crown case but did not establish an absence of evidence capable of supporting a guilty verdict. The alleged information in MFI 3 and MFI 4 had to be considered in combination, issues of meaning and inference were for the jury, later share price evidence was relevant and capable of consideration, and the Crown was not required to prove materiality solely through expert evidence. There was evidence from which the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to materiality for both MFI 3 and MFI 4.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Insider Trading Contrary to Sections 1043 A(1)(c) and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Reserved Reasons for Refusing the Accused's No Case Submission After the Close of the Crown Case, Insofar as It Concerned Materiality
Outcome
Application for directed verdicts or no case submission on the materiality ground refused; reserved reasons published.
Legal Topics
['insider Trading' 'no Case Submission' 'directed Verdict' 'inside Information' 'materiality' 'share Price Evidence' 'expert Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'corporations Law'] ['insider Trading' 'no Case Submission' 'directed Verdict' 'inside Information' 'materiality' 'share Price Evidence' 'expert Evidence']

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 Prosecution for Insider Trading Contrary to Sections 1043 A(1)(c) and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Reserved Reasons for Refusing the Accused's No Case Submission After the Close of the Crown Case, Insofar as It Concerned Materiality

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown had adduced evidence upon which a jury could convict the accused on the materiality element of insider trading' 'Whether the alleged inside information in MFI 3 and MFI 4, considered as a whole and in combination, was capable of being found material' 'Whether public availability of parts of the information and existing market knowledge meant there was no evidence of materiality' 'Whether later share price movement evidence and expert opinion evidence could support materiality']

Ratio Decidendi

The no case submission on materiality failed because the accused's submissions identified potential weaknesses in the Crown case but did not establish an absence of evidence capable of supporting a guilty verdict. The alleged information in MFI 3 and MFI 4 had to be considered in combination, issues of meaning and inference were for the jury, later share price evidence was relevant and capable of consideration, and the Crown was not required to prove materiality solely through expert evidence. There was evidence from which the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to materiality for both MFI 3 and MFI 4.

Court Disposition

Application for directed verdicts or no case submission on the materiality ground refused; reserved reasons published.

Orders

  • ['The ground of the application concerning materiality was rejected.']