Legal Research
Cases
R v Obeid (No 4)

R v Obeid (No 4)

Case [2015] NSWSC 1442 28 September 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1442
Hearing dates: 28 September 2015
Date of orders: 28 September 2015
Decision date: 28 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) The accused be granted leave under s 132A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to apply for an order for a trial by judge alone up to and including 23 September 2015.

(2)   The accused's notice of motion filed 23 September 2015 be dismissed.

(3)   The proceedings be listed for directions at 9.30am on 12 October 2015.
(4)   There be liberty to apply on one day's notice.
Catchwords: CRIME – application for judge alone trial – second application – Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 130A – whether interests of justice warrant treating earlier refusal as not binding – whether earlier refusal “flawed” – whether material change in circumstances from earlier refusal – persistent adverse publicity labelling accused as corrupt – means of allaying publicity – whether factual issues for jury to consider – whether factual issues involving application of community standards – no matter raised that warrants treating earlier order as not binding – fresh consideration warrants refusal in any event – not appropriate for certification under s 5F(3)(b).
Legislation Cited: - Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 – s 10, s 132
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – s5F(3)(b)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – s 130A, s 132
- Evidence Act 1995 – s 38
- Independent Commission against Corruption Act 1988
Cases Cited: - Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cascade Coal Pty Limited and Ors [2015] FCA 607
- Douglas v John Fairfax & Sons Limited [1983] 3 NSWLR 126
- Greiner v Independent Commission against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125
- John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v District Court of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 324; 61 NSWLR 344
- Pellegrino v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cwlth) [2008] NSWCCA 17; 71 NSWLR 96
- R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; 217 A Crim R 1
- R v Jamal [2008] NSWCCA 177; 72 NSWLR 258
- R v McNeil [2015] NSWSC 357
- R v Obeid [2015] NSWSC 897
- R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380
- R v Quach [2010] VSCA 106; 201 A Crim R 522
- R v Simmons, R v Moore No 4 [2015] NSWSC 259
- R v Stanley [2013] NSWCCA 124
- R v Yuill (1993) 69 A Crim R 450
- State of Western Australia v Rayney [2011] WASC 326; 42 WAR 383
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Applicant
Edward Moses Obeid – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Neil SC – Crown
G. Reynolds SC, D. Hume – Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown
Breene & Breene – Respondent

File Number(s): 2015/053925
Publication restriction: Restriction lifted.

Judgment (revised from ex tempore)

On 23 September 2015, the accused Edward Moses Obeid filed a…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: Content removed [2015] NSWSC 1442
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1442
Decision Date: 28 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal prosecution against the respondents, who were charged with various counts of misconduct in public office, among other offences. The respondents applied for a second time for a trial by judge alone, having previously been denied such a trial. This application was made under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, specifically section 130A, which provides the grounds for a judge alone trial when it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred around whether the earlier refusal to grant a judge alone trial could be treated as not binding. The court considered whether the earlier refusal was flawed, whether there had been a material change in circumstances since the first application, and whether the persistent adverse publicity that labelled the accused as corrupt could be alleviated. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the factual issues involved in the application were such that they should be considered by a jury or if they involved the application of community standards, which might warrant a judge alone trial.

The court found that there were no new matters raised that warranted treating the earlier order as not binding. It held that a fresh consideration of the application warranted refusal in any event, as the matters raised did not sufficiently demonstrate that a judge alone trial was in the interests of justice. The court also concluded that it was not appropriate for the matter to be certified under section 5F(3)(b) of the Act.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a trial by judge alone was to be refused. The matter would proceed to a jury trial, as the court found no compelling reasons to deviate from the initial decision to deny a judge alone trial.

Orders