Legal Research
Cases
R v Obeid (No 9)

R v Obeid (No 9)

Case [2016] NSWSC 520 29 April 2016

Criminal Liability

Public Interest Immunity

Wilful Misconduct in Public Office

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Obeid (No 9) [2016] NSWSC 520
Hearing dates: 22 April 2016
Date of orders: 29 April 2016
Decision date: 29 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) The parties, ICAC and the State of New South Wales confer in relation to the orders necessary to give effect to this judgment;
(2) Pursuant to s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 this judgment not be published until further order.
Catchwords: PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY – Cabinet documents – Ministerial correspondence – Cabinet advice – criminal proceedings – wilful misconduct in public office – alleged corruption of government processes by Legislative Councillor – balancing exercise – access to some documents granted – some refused.
Legislation Cited: - Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) – s 10
- Evidence Act 2005 (NSW) – s 130, Division 1, 1A, 1C or 3 of Part 3.10
Cases Cited: - Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
- Commonwealth v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2000] FCA 453; 98 FCR 31
- The Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604
- Egan v Chadwick [1999] NSWCA 176; 46 NSWLR 563
- Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309
- R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337
- R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380
- R v Obeid (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 132
- R v Quach [2010] VSCA 106; 201 A Crim R 522
- Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; 142 CLR 1
- State of New South Wales v Public Transport Ticketing Corporation [2011] NSWCA 60
Texts Cited: J.D.Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th Australian ed, 2010
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Applicant
Edward Moses Obeid – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
S. Robertson – Independent Commission against Corruption
T. Glover – Roads & Maritime Services and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority
B. Hughes SC – Accused
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown
Breene & Breene – Accused
Crown Solicitor – State of New South Wales

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

Judgment

On 22 April 2016, the Court heard argument on an application made by the State of New South Wales (the “State”) that the accused, Edward Moses Obeid, be denied access to certain documents placed before the Cabinet of New South Wales in 2007 concerning the adoption of a proposed Commercial Lease Policy (“CLP”) applicable to property owned by the Maritime Authority of New South Wales. The State contended that access should be refused on the basis that the public interest in preventing their disclosure outweighs the public interest in access being granted.
For the reasons that follow, I uphold this claim in relation to some of the documents the subject of the application but reject it in respect of two documents which are briefly described below. In providing reasons for this conclusion, it is necessary to be circumspect in…

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 9)

Details

AGLC: R v Obeid (No 9) [2016] NSWSC 520
Case: [2016] NSWSC 520
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a legal dispute between the respondent and the Crown, concerning the admissibility of certain documents in criminal proceedings against the respondent. The proceedings pertained to allegations of wilful misconduct in public office and the alleged corruption of government processes by a member of the Legislative Council. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which public interest immunity applied to specific documents, including cabinet documents, ministerial correspondence, and cabinet advice, in the context of the criminal proceedings.

The legal issues before the court centred on the balancing of public interest immunity and the right to a fair trial. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the documents in question were relevant to the respondent's defence and whether their disclosure would unduly prejudice the respondent's right to a fair trial. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of cabinet documents and ministerial advice against the need for transparency in criminal proceedings.

The court found that the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of cabinet documents and ministerial advice was strong, given the importance of maintaining the integrity of the decision-making process and ensuring frank and fearless advice to ministers. However, the court also recognised the need for transparency in criminal proceedings, particularly where the documents in question were relevant to the respondent's defence and the alleged misconduct. As a result, the court granted access to some documents while refusing access to others, finding that the balance between the competing interests favoured the disclosure of certain documents and the non-disclosure of others.

The court's decision was that access to some of the documents in question would be granted, while access to others would be refused. The specific orders made by the court were not detailed in the text provided, but it is clear that the court carefully considered the public interest and the need for transparency in reaching its decision.

Orders