I think what Norah Barlow did is just plain wrong.
She was in a position inside the company where she was privy to, and knew price sensitive information, and she acted upon that information just prior to announcement whether she intended to or not.
If what she did isn't against the law, then it should be against SUM's own constitution if they have a decent one in place.
Most decent companies I know have a constitution that includes a trading window that is not open to any directors, managers, or staff buying or selling shares for a month prior to any regular market announcement. For quarterly announcements, this still leaves 8 month a year in which these people can trade. Further those directly involved with or in the company must announce to the company their intention to trade providing at least a week's notice before making the trade.
In my view she has abused her position, and in doing so has ripped off those who bought her shares up to the tune of $0.90 x 747,322 = NZ$672,000. The actual number would be less than this if you look at what she could have sold her shares for immediately after the Q1 results were released. In any event it is the principle that counts. If I had bought her lot, I would be less than happy.