New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal CITATION : Regina v Rivkin [2003] NSWCCA 307 revised - 12/02/2004 HEARING DATE(S) : 15/10/03, 16/10/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 February 2004 JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 1 DECISION : Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. CATCHWORDS : Appeal against conviction - insider trading - appellant found guilty of contravening s1002G(2) Corporations Act 2001 - Whether miscarriage of justice - actual or ostensible bias of trial judge - former professional association - whether "personal animosity" involved in sentence - Whether trial judge erred in not directing verdict of acquittal - meaning of "information" - possession of information as particularised - materiality - Admissibility of evidence - relevance - prejudicial/probative value - medical evidence as to witness' capacity to give reliable evidence or to present more attractively - Whether summing up unfair - judicial comment/warning - Whether verdict unreasonable - Fitness to stand trial - brain tumour - frontal lobe dysfunction - appellant's mental state - conduct at trial - credibility - expert evidence - mental element of offence - Fresh evidence of undiagnosed meningioma - relevance on appeal to issues of fitness to stand trial, miscarriage stemming from inappropriate behaviour, mens rea and sentence - Equality before the law - law's concerns regarding fitness is with capacity to understand and follow proceedings not with maximising capacity to present as attractive personality - sentencing in "white collar" criminal matters - court's duty not to be swayed by "community attitudes" in particular cases as promoted by media - Appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether miscarriage of sentencing judge's discretion - insider trading not a "victimless" crime - appellant's public persona - good character - personal and general deterrence - finding of "contemptuous arrogance" - no contrition - impact of fresh evidence as to appellant's medical and mental state where absence of evidence as to any change of attitude by prisoner - D Evidence Act 1995 ss102-110 LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss16A, 17A, 20AB Corporations Act 2001 ss1002A, 1002B, 1002C,1002G Aussie Airlines Pty Limited v Australian Airlines Pty Limited & Qantas Airlines Limited (1996) 65 FCR 215 Builders' Registration Board of Queensland v Rauber (1983) 57 ALJR 376 Coombe v Bessell (1994) 4 Tas R 149 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Dovade Pty Limited v Westpac Banking Group (1999) 46 NSWLR 168 Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1 Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 205 CLR 337. Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Hooker Investments Pty Limited v Baring Bros Halkerston and Partners Securities Limited (1986) 10 ACLR 462 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1 R v Bailey (1988) 35 A Crim R 458 R v El Rashid, NSWCCA 7 April 1995 CASES CITED : R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359 R v Hannes [2002] 173 FLR 1 R v ITA [2003] NSWCCA 174 R v Liosatos [1964] SASR 40 R v Mailes (2001) 126 A Crim R 20 R v Maxwell NSWCCA 23 December 1998 R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368 R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328 R v Presser [1958] VR 45 R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81 R v Turner [1975] QB 834 at 842 Re Polites (1991) 100 ALR 634 S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266 Saleam v R (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 Toohey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1965] AC 595 Webb & Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 Zaidi v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 189 PARTIES : Regina Rene Walter Rivkin FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60198/03 COUNSEL : D Yates SC with M Buscombe (Crown) R Ellicott QC with B McClintock SC and M Wigney SOLICITORS : C K Smith (Crown) S E O'Connor LOWER COURT Supreme Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 71998/03 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Whealy J JUDICIAL OFFICER : For Full judgment see: [2004] NSWCCA 7 Last Modified: 06/16/2009 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.