Fysh v R

Judgment 1BATHURST CJ: I agree with Hoeben CJ at CL. 2HOEBEN CJ at CL: Trial and sentence The applicant for leave to appeal stood trial between 15 October 2012 and 14 November 2012 before McCallum J and a jury with respect to four counts of insider trading under ss 1043A(1)(c) and 1311(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). On 14 November 2012 the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on the first two counts and guilty with respect to the third and fourth counts. 3Counts 3 and 4 alleged that in early December 2007, while in possession of inside information which was not generally available concerning Queensland Gas Company Ltd (QGC), the applicant purchased shares in QGC in the amount of 240,000 and 10,000 respectively. 4On 19 December 2012 the applicant was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with respect to count 3, to commence on 11 December 2012 and expire on 10 December 2014. On count 4 the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to commence on 11 December 2012 and expire on 10 June 2014. Her Honour ordered that the applicant was to be released on recognisance after serving 12 months of imprisonment. 5The applicant sought leave to appeal from his conviction on the following grounds: Ground 1: The verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, because it was not open to the jury to be satisfied that at the time that he purchased the QGC shares, item (f) of the information in MFI 4 was possessed by Mr Fysh. Ground 2: The verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, because it was not open to the jury to be satisfied that at the time that he purchased the QGC shares, Mr Fysh possessed the substance of the information in MFI 4 taken as a whole or in combination, in that he did not possess the information in item (f) of MFI 4. Ground 3: The verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, because it was not open to the jury to be satisfied that the information in MFI 4 was material in the sense that if the information were generally available, a reasonable person would expect it to have a material effect on the price or value of QGC shares. 6The application for leave to appeal and the appeal were heard by this Court on 17 July 2013. At the conclusion of the appeal, the Court made the following orders: