Curtis v R [2016] NSWCCA 299

Curtis v R [2016] NSWCCA 299

The agreement as pleaded did not require the Crown to prove that all information about Orion's trading intentions would be material; the indictment specified an agreement to engage in trading using only information that would be material. The jury was entitled to conclude, based on evidence and directions, that the information Hartman possessed would, if generally available, influence persons who commonly acquire Division 3 financial products. The Crown was not required to prove that all subject information was, in fact, material; it sufficed that Hartman and Curtis believed the information would be material and not generally available.

Parties
Appellant: Oliver Peter Curtis; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Insider Trading, Unreasonable Verdict, Materiality of Information
Criminal Law Conspiracy Insider Trading Unreasonable Verdict Materiality of Information

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Peter Curtis

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Crown must prove all information about trading intentions was material
  3. 3 Requirements for knowledge and belief in conspiracy to commit insider trading

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement as pleaded did not require the Crown to prove that all information about Orion's trading intentions would be material; the indictment specified an agreement to engage in trading using only information that would be material. The jury was entitled to conclude, based on evidence and directions, that the information Hartman possessed would, if generally available, influence persons who commonly acquire Division 3 financial products. The Crown was not required to prove that all subject information was, in fact, material; it sufficed that Hartman and Curtis believed the information would be material and not generally available.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed