R v Obeid (No 8) - [2016] NSWSC 388

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 388
Hearing dates: 7 April 2016
Date of orders: 07 April 2016
Decision date: 07 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) The non-publication orders made under s 8(1)(a) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) in respect of the following judgments be set aside:
(A) R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380;
(B) Obeid v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 309;
(C) R v Obeid (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1967; and
(D) R v Obeid (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1441
Catchwords: NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS – previous non-publication orders made in respect of interlocutory judgments in criminal proceedings – accused unsuccessfully sought stay of proceedings pending application for special leave to appeal – single judge High Court refused stay and made non-publication order expiring March 2016 – order expired without application to extend – accused’s trial occurred in meantime but jury was discharged before verdict – High Court’s reasons published on internet – basis for previous non-publication orders no longer remains – orders discharged – whether judgments to be placed on Caselaw.
Legislation Cited: - Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) – s 8(1)
Cases Cited: - Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194
- Obeid v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 309
- Obeid v The Queen [2016] HCA 9
- Obeid v The Queen [No 2] [2016] HCA 10
- R v Obeid [2015] NSWSC 897
- R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380
- R v Obeid (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1441
- R v Obeid (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1967
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Applicant
Edward Moses Obeid – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms J. Chen (Sol) – Crown
T. Breene (Sol) – Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown
Breene & Breene – Respondent

File Number(s): 2015/053925
Publication restriction: Nil but see [9].

EX TemporE Judgment

On 22 September 2015, I overruled a demurrer raised by the accused, Edward Moses Obeid, to the amended indictment and otherwise dismissed his application to quash the indictment or permanently stay the proceedings: R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380 (“Obeid No 2”). On 8 December 2015 the Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal that judgment, but dismissed the appeal: Obeid v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 309. At that time Mr Obeid’s trial was fixed to commence on 10 February 2016. An earlier trial date had been vacated to facilitate Mr Obeid’s application for leave to appeal from Obeid No 2.
Following the dismissal of his appeal, Mr Obeid filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision. On 17 December 2015 I refused an application to stay Mr Obeid’s trial pending the hearing of his application for special leave to appeal: R v Obeid (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1967 (“Obeid…

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 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Obeid (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 388
Case: [2016] NSWSC 388
Decision Date: 07 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, including individuals and companies associated with the Obeid family, sought the discharge of previous non-publication orders that had been made in respect of interlocutory judgments in their criminal proceedings. These orders had been made by a single judge of the High Court and had been intended to limit the publication of certain details that might prejudice the respondents' right to a fair trial. The respondents' application came after the expiry of these orders and the conclusion of their criminal proceedings, which had resulted in the discharge of the jury before a verdict was reached. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the previous non-publication orders should be discharged given that the basis for their imposition no longer existed.

The court considered that the reasons for the non-publication orders were no longer applicable because the respondents' criminal proceedings had concluded without a verdict and the orders had expired without being extended. The court also noted that the High Court's reasons for the orders had already been published on the internet, thus diminishing the need for continued restrictions on publication. The court held that there was no longer any substantial risk of prejudice to the respondents' right to a fair trial by the publication of the judgments. Consequently, the court discharged the non-publication orders and directed that the judgments be placed on Caselaw, the online legal database.

In light of the above, the court determined that the non-publication orders were no longer necessary and should be discharged. This decision allowed for the judgments to be made available to the public through the official legal database. The respondents' application was successful, and the non-publication orders were discharged. No further orders were made as the court deemed it appropriate to allow the judgments to be published as part of the official legal record.

Orders