Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14

Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14

There was evidence upon which the statutory defence under s 998(6) of the Corporations Law should have been left to the jury, including evidence of honesty, the appellant acting on instructions from reputable persons, and no direct or circumstantial evidence of a dishonest purpose; the trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence and excluding expert evidence; the trial miscarried.

Parties
Appellant: Jeffrey Joseph Braysich; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Defences, Directions to Jury, False Trading, Market Misconduct, Market Rigging
Criminal Law Corporations Law Burden of Proof Defences Directions to Jury False Trading Market Misconduct Market Rigging

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Joseph Braysich

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the statutory defence under s 998(6) of the Corporations Law from the jury
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the evidential burden to have the statutory defence left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence relevant to the statutory defence should have been admitted

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence upon which the statutory defence under s 998(6) of the Corporations Law should have been left to the jury, including evidence of honesty, the appellant acting on instructions from reputable persons, and no direct or circumstantial evidence of a dishonest purpose; the trial judge erred in withdrawing the defence and excluding expert evidence; the trial miscarried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia made on 16 October 2009 dismissing the appeal against conviction and, in its place, order that: (a) the appeal to that Court be allowed; (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed; and (c) the matter be remitted to the District...