The Court held that a conspiracy to commit insider procuring under s 1043A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act is not conceptually deficient merely because the inside information does not yet exist at the time of the agreement; it suffices that the conspirators knew or believed that information meeting the statutory definition would come into existence. The Crown was not required to prove that the accused personally possessed inside information, only that he knew or believed the co-conspirator would possess such information and would procure the accused to trade. The Court also declined to dismiss the conspiracy charge under s 11.5(6) of the Criminal Code, holding that conspiracy was an appropriate charge where 45 substantive offences would have been significantly more complex to prosecute, and the accused failed to identify what substantive offence could have been charged against him.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.