It's still a failure in principle. The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal but it was still an accidental leak of (at the time) private information. They just got lucky.

> The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal

the effects are not minimal

if you're crooked: getting this sort of information early is potentially extremely lucrative

(why crooked? because trading on UPSI is illegal)

Surely it was no longer UPSI (Unpublished Price Sensitive Information) after the OBR published it?

I wouldn't be betting my freedom on the regulator agreeing with that logic

the regulations specifically go into great detail about official publications and formal circulation

would a reasonable person consider this a leak? then it's UPSI

The OBR admits that they published it too early.

I am not an expert but I think that even trading on a leak is not unlawful as long as that leaked information was indeed made public (e.g. someone leaks to the media and the media then publish it), although it may have been unlawful to leak the information. The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.

> I am not an expert

I have had regulatory training on this exact matter, and it covers unintended leaks explicitly

and there is no way I would trade

> The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.

no, it isn't the point

the regulator cares that participants are seen to be clean, practicing "fit and proper" behaviour

if a reasonable person would think it was dodgy, they'll have your head (and your certification to practice)

regardless of whether or not it was illegal

Yes, I have had the corporate training on leaks and insider trading, too...

Trading on public information is fit and proper (Edit: Indeed, a technical term, but that does not make my statement incorrect, or does it?)

I think you may have skipped the part of leak to whom. If it is a leak to you then it is still not public and indeed insider trading. But if leaked to the public then it is different (and also how do you prevent people from trading on what they see in the media?)

But that's in general as in this case, the OBR admits they released it and, again, anyway once it's on BBC News it's free for all.

> Yes, I have had the corporate training on leaks and insider trading, too...

by a regulated investment firm? specifically on UPSI?

"fit and proper" is a technical term in the FCA manual

I would not risk my regulator not considering me as such by trading on this information

if you would: provide your reference number, and we can ask them if they agree!

Well if you are an expert that's great as you will be able to explain how using a leak to the public and/or something that is public information can be construed as improper. That was my previous point and question.

I agree. They didn’t intend to publish it, but they did publish it. They might not have advertised its presence yet, but it was freely available to anyone who asked.

If by 'much of the info' you mean policy changes, those are deliberately leaked by the politicians, not civil servants or their family members. They do this to test reactions and frame the debate.