McQuoid, R. v

McQuoid, R. v

The sentence of eight months' imprisonment for deliberate insider dealing was not excessive, given the breach of trust, substantial profit, and the need for deterrence; regulatory policy changes do not mitigate criminal liability or sentencing.

Parties
Applicant: Christopher McQuoid; Co Accused: James William Melbourne; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Insider Dealing, Market Abuse, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Insider Dealing Market Abuse Sentencing Guidelines

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher McQuoid

Applicant

James William Melbourne

Co Accused

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for insider dealing was excessive
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing principles for insider dealing offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of eight months' imprisonment for deliberate insider dealing was not excessive, given the breach of trust, substantial profit, and the need for deterrence; regulatory policy changes do not mitigate criminal liability or sentencing.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Sentence of eight months' imprisonment upheld