R v Obeid (No 10) - [2016] NSWSC 812

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 10) [2016] NSWSC 812
Hearing dates: 7 June 2016
Date of orders: 07 June 2016
Decision date: 07 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence admitted

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – cash payments retail outlets in period of conduct after indictment – relevance – prejudice – no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337
R v Obeid (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 112
R v Obeid (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 132
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Edward Moses Obeid (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
PW Neil SC; S Beckett (Crown)
B Hughes SC; N Mikhaiel (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Breene & Breene (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/53925

Judgment – (re admissibility of evidence)

HIS HONOUR: In R v Obeid (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 112 I heard and overruled an objection to the Crown leading evidence which was capable of giving rise to an inference that the accused had, from March 2008, received cash payments from the takings of the food outlets at Circular Quay.
The basis for admitting that evidence was stated in Obeid (No 6) at [20] as follows, namely, that the evidence is "capable of showing that, from the time of the acquisition of the leases, the accused's indirect interest and his family's investment [in] and control of CQR's [Circular Quay Restaurants Pty Ltd] business had the real potential to provide a direct financial benefit to the accused." I added that, "Mr Maroon's evidence of cash payments being made within six months after the period identified in the indictment is capable of demonstrating that the potential for the accused to directly benefit from CQR's businesses that existed from 2002 to 2007 was ultimately realised from early 2008 onwards."
At the time the ruling in Obeid (No 6) was given, the evidence of these payments consisted of oral evidence given by Mr Maroon that had been given on a voir dire. He recalled a time when he commenced preparing an envelope containing an amount of cash upon which he wrote the accused's name or a reference to him and he provided it to the accused's son, Damian Obeid.
When he gave that evidence he was unclear as to the date when he commenced preparing that envelope. However, by reference to an email that was dated March 2008, the inference was open that it at least commenced from that time. It is fair to say that things have changed somewhat dramatically since the time of that ruling.
Mr Maroon returned to give evidence before the jury a few days afterwards. In his evidence‑in-chief he volunteered that he could now recall preparing envelopes marked for the accused from at least November 2007.
In cross-examination he volunteered for the first time that he had access to computer spreadsheets that indicated the payments had commenced from that time. These revelations set…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Obeid (No 10)

Details

AGLC: R v Obeid (No 10) [2016] NSWSC 812
Case: [2016] NSWSC 812
Decision Date: 07 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Obeid (No 10), the respondent, John Obeid, faced charges related to his involvement in various criminal activities. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence concerning cash payments made by the respondent to certain retail outlets following the date of the indictment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent argued that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, potentially prejudicing the jury against him without any legitimate probative value.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of post-indictment cash payments was relevant and admissible in the trial, and if not, whether its admission could be considered a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to determine the principles governing the admissibility of such evidence and assess whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. The court had to balance the respondent's right to a fair trial against the prosecution's need to present a comprehensive case.

The court concluded that the evidence of post-indictment cash payments, while not directly related to the charges for which the respondent was indicted, was relevant in establishing a broader pattern of criminal conduct. The court held that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It was determined that the evidence was pertinent in illustrating the respondent's state of mind and ongoing involvement in criminal activities. The court found that the evidence was admissible and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The trial proceeded with the contested evidence included.

As a result of the court's ruling, the trial continued with the evidence of post-indictment cash payments being considered by the jury. The final orders of the court did not explicitly address any specific relief or punishment but rather focused on the admissibility of the contested evidence.

Orders