Sunak’s decision to call a general election for July 2024 was a surprise to many, including several Conservative MPs, who were expecting an autumn date.
The court heard that Sunak held a private Downing Street meeting on 10 March of that year to discuss possible dates.
Neither Lee nor his wife attended the meeting, but the couple began betting online on the election being held in July or between July and September, the court heard.
Prosecutor Zoe Johnson said: “Although not at Number 10, the overwhelming inference is that Anthony Lee was receiving inside information as the meeting went on and was acting upon it.”
She added: “Together they were using it to make a profit for themselves.”
Lee placed or tried to place 71 bets during the period, while his wife placed eight and attempted a ninth, the court heard.
Baumgartner described Anthony Lee as a “central figure” in the preparation of the general election, who sat at a group of desks within Tory HQ known as the “God Pod”.
Representing Lee, barrister Richard Pratt said his client did not concretely know the working date of the election, saying it “still represented a gamble from his point of view”.
The barrister told the court: “It was always possible the prime minister could change his mind.”
Pratt said there “wasn’t any direct manipulation” by the defendant.
Laura Lee worked for the Tories as their “head of international” and had been selected as the party candidate for Bristol North West for the election.
Baumgartner said she had no involvement in the election planning and her access to information “came predominantly” from her husband.
The court heard Hind’s husband Anthony worked as a deputy digital director for the Conservatives but did not place any bets himself.
Baumgartner said Hind’s husband “was party to emails relating to the forthcoming general election and was one potential source of your inside information”.
The judge later said “someone else who worked within the heart of CCHQ” could have given her the “highly confidential” information.
The court heard Hind placed four bets and made three further unsuccessful attempts to place bets. The unsuccessful attempts were for £767, £700 and £750.
The judge described Hind’s bets as a “clear departure from your previous betting history”, noting: “Before the present offending, your largest stake had been £10.50, and only seven of your 3,399 recorded selections involved a stake of that amount.”
