R v Obeid (No 7) - [2016] NSWSC 132

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 132
Hearing dates: 23 February 2016
Date of orders: 24 February 2016
Decision date: 24 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Application to discharge jury granted.

Catchwords: JURY TRIAL – discharge application – Crown witness reveals existence of potentially corroborative material not revealed previously – no proper opportunity for Accused or Crown to examine and consider material – application for discharge granted.
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 discharge jury; see transcript p 575

Today was due to be the ninth day of the trial. The Crown was in the process of leading evidence in its case. It was anticipated that it would close its case shortly. Before the jury were brought in Senior Counsel for the accused, Mr Hughes SC, advised the Court that he would be applying to discharge the jury. The Crown Prosecutor also indicated that the Crown was seeking leave to recall two witnesses in its case, namely an ICAC investigator, Mr Berry, and Mr Paul Maroon.
The jury were dismissed for the day and the Court heard argument on those applications. For the reasons that follow I will order the discharge of the jury when the matter resumes tomorrow. That conclusion renders otiose the Crown's application.

Background

Both applications arise out of evidence given by a Crown witness, Paul Maroon, on the eighth day of the trial. The form of the indictment and an outline of the Crown case against the accused are set out in the judgment in Obeid v Crown (No 2) (2015) NSWSC 1380 (“Obeid No 2”) at [14] to [23], which I will not repeat. The broad effect of Mr Maroon's evidence is that, at some point after the accused allegedly made the representations referred to in the indictment to Mr Dunn, he, that is Mr Maroon, took steps to set aside an amount of cash from the takings of the food outlets at Circular Quay for delivery to the accused.
Mr Maroon gave evidence during a private session as part of an inquiry conducted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Mr Maroon was not called in its public session and no opportunity to cross-examine Mr Maroon was proffered to the accused during ICAC's inquiry.
After this trial commenced Mr Hughes SC indicated that Mr Maroon's evidence was objected to. He also sought that his evidence be elicited on a voir dire to clarify exactly what his evidence at trial would be. The voir dire took place on the fifth day of the trial, 17 February 2016, in the absence of the jury. After…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Obeid (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 132
Case: [2016] NSWSC 132
Decision Date: 24 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Obeid (No 7) involved the defendants, Obeid and others, on various charges including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and other related offences. The defendants were on trial before a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the Crown's application to discharge the jury without the defendants being found guilty. The defendants had applied for the jury to be discharged on the basis that they had been deprived of their right to a fair trial due to the late disclosure of evidence by the Crown.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants' right to a fair trial had been compromised by the late disclosure of potentially corroborative evidence by a Crown witness, and whether the defendants had been given a proper opportunity to examine and consider this material. The court had to consider the principles of fairness and natural justice, the obligations of the Crown to disclose evidence, and the impact of the late disclosure on the defendants' ability to prepare their defence.

The court held that the late disclosure of the potentially corroborative evidence by the Crown had deprived the defendants of their right to a fair trial. The evidence was material and could have had a significant impact on the trial's outcome. The court found that the defendants had not been given a proper opportunity to examine and consider the material, as it was disclosed shortly before the witness gave evidence. The court concluded that the defendants' right to a fair trial had been compromised, and granted the application for discharge. The court emphasised the importance of timely disclosure of evidence by the Crown and the need for fairness in the administration of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the jury be discharged without the defendants being found guilty of the charges. The court also made orders for the defendants to be released on bail pending any future proceedings.

Orders