22 At the time the offender purchased his shares in JNA he was possessed of the following information:
(a) Senior officers of Cisco were giving consideration to Cisco offering to acquire all of the shares in JNA and confidential discussions were taking place between representatives of JNA and other senior officers of Cisco in that regard; and
(b) negotiations were taking place between representatives of JNA and another corporation, which was a major corporation and rival of Cisco, about whether that corporation would offer to acquire all the shares in JNA; and
(c) JNA was expecting offers well above $3.05 per shares for its shares.
23 The offender obtained this information as a result of a series of confidential communications, both oral and email, with officers and employees of JNA and of his employer, Cisco, including the telephone discussion with Mr Davies and Mr Williams on 21 May 1998.
24 Documents were tendered in the offender's case with a view to demonstrating that there was other information in the market place of a similar kind to the information that he had, although admittedly not of the same quality. It was submitted that these documents tended to show that there was information in the market place to the effect that JNA was undervalued and likely to be the subject of a takeover, and that this information was having some influence on its share price. The relevance of the fact that other similar information was said to be available was submitted to be twofold. First, it bore on the offender's culpability: the less generally available and the more material the information an insider possesses, the greater his or her culpability. Secondly, the existence of the information went to contrition: the Crown case was said not to have been as strong as it may at first have appeard, and the offender's plea was to be seen as a true demonstration of his contrition.
25 I am not of the opinion that the documents tendered in the offender's case materially affected the strength of the Crown case. To my mind the documents do not show that there was similar information available in the market place. In any event I am of the view that the offender's culpability is not to be assessed as lower, even if it were the case that similar, less specific, information was in the marketplace.
26 The offender described his position with Cisco as being that of "an individual contributor", which he explained was akin to being an internal consultant. It was his role to report on technology and the directions that Cisco might take in product development. However his position is characterised, the fact is that by virtue of it he had knowledge of the highly confidential negotiations between Cisco and JNA. His position was such that he had access to Mr Davies, from whom he obtained the information. He went into the market immediately after so doing in order to take advantage of it. His offending conduct was not isolated. It took place over a period of nearly two months. The pattern of his buy orders is eloquent of his understanding that the information was not generally available and, if it were, that it might have a material effect on the price of the shares. He outlaid a substantial sum on the purchase of JNA shares and secured a substantial profit.