R v Obeid (No 6) - [2016] NSWSC 112

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 112
Hearing dates: 17 February 2016
Date of orders: 18 February 2016
Decision date: 18 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence admitted.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – witness testified that he placed cash in envelope with Accused’s name on it – provided it to sons – cash from business owned and operated by Accused’s family – payments made after period of indictment – whether evidence relevant – whether should be rejected because of charge of unfair prejudice – evidence admitted.
Legislation Cited: - Evidence Act 1995 – s 55, s 66, s 137
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Applicant
Edward Moses Obeid – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Neil SC, Ms S. Beckett – Crown
B. Hughes SC, J.J. Tunks – Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown
Breene & Breene – Respondent

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

EX TemporE Judgment (revised from Transcript)

Application to adduce evidence from Paul Maroon; see transcript p 350

On 17 February 2016, being the fifth day of the trial and in the absence of the jury, the Court heard evidence from Mr Paul Maroon and submissions on the accused's objection to that evidence being adduced in the trial. This judgment concerns that application.

Background

The accused, Edward Moses Obeid, is charged with one count of wilful misconduct in public office. The form of the indictment and an outline of the Crown case are set out in the judgment in Obeid v R (2) 2015 NSWSC 1380 (“Obeid No 2”) at [14] to [23], which I will not repeat. Mr Maroon's evidence concerns the alleged receipt by the accused of cash derived from the cash takings of the two food outlets at Circular Quay. Before describing his evidence further it is necessary to briefly outline the effect of other evidence adduced by the Crown on this point concerning the accused's connection to the two retail outlets.
The lessee of the outlets was a company called Circular Quay Restaurants Pty Limited (CQR). A company search of CQR lists its sole director, secretary and shareholder as the accused's brother-in-law, John Abood. It is an agreed fact in the trial that “90% of the interest in the business flowed to the Obeid Family Trust No 2” and that the accused, his wife and other family members were "discretionary beneficiaries" of that trust. Based on this, it is also an agreed fact that the accused had an "indirect interest in the CQR leases".
The evidence is capable of establishing that Mr Abood, by one means or another, owned the remaining 10% interest in the businesses and also received an annual wage for managing them. Further, there is evidence in the form of documents and oral evidence from the accused’s son, Damian Obeid, which is capable of establishing that $1.398 million of the total amount of $2.4 million which was paid…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Obeid (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 112
Case: [2016] NSWSC 112
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal proceeding against an accused, where the central issue revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence presented by a witness. The witness testified that he had placed cash in an envelope with the accused's name on it, which he then provided to the accused's sons. The cash originated from a business owned and operated by the accused's family. The payments in question were made after the period of indictment. The court had to determine whether this evidence was relevant to the case and whether it should be rejected due to potential unfair prejudice against the accused. The central legal issue was the relevance and admissibility of the evidence under the rules of evidence, specifically concerning the timing of the payments and their relation to the period of indictment.

The court carefully considered the relevance of the evidence, focusing on whether the timing of the payments could establish any connection to the period of indictment. The court recognised that the evidence might indicate a pattern of conduct that could be relevant to the charges against the accused. However, the court also weighed the potential for prejudice, considering whether admitting the evidence would unfairly prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the evidence, despite its potential prejudicial impact, was relevant and should not be excluded. The court ruled that the evidence could be admitted, balancing the probative value against any prejudicial effect.

In conclusion, the court admitted the contested evidence, finding it relevant to the case despite the potential for prejudice. The evidence regarding the placement of cash in an envelope with the accused's name, provided to his sons from a family-owned business, was deemed admissible. The court's decision underscores the importance of assessing the balance between the probative value of evidence and its potential prejudicial impact. This ruling ensures that relevant evidence is not unjustly excluded, even when it may have adverse effects on the accused's trial fairness. The court's decision highlights the nuanced approach required in determining the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders