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

Supreme Court New South Wales

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 1. 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 1. 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. 2. 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". 3. 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 for the two outlets and a third outlet was obtained by financing secured against a mortgage taken over a house in Hunters Hill owned by the accused's wife and occupied by both of them. Further, there is evidence capable of establishing that a few months after the purchase of the outlets in late 2002 an amount of approximately $1,000 a week from the cash takings was delivered to the accused's wife until the cessation of the leases. 4. Damian Obeid stated that he usually made the deliveries of cash to his mother. He also stated the purpose of the payment was "housekeeping money", which I understand to refer to paying home and living costs. Mr Damian Obeid further stated that the provision of a weekly sum to his mother was a longstanding arrangement that preceded the purchase of the outlets. 5. It is this material that constitutes the evidence concerning the form of "interest", whether it be commercial, beneficial, family or personal, that the accused had in the tenancies referred to in the indictment. 6. In addition, there is evidence capable of establishing that the accused was aware that the businesses were being purchased by family interests, specifically his sons. The Crown also contends that an inference is available that the accused was aware of the level, or likely level, of financial commitment his family members incurred in purchasing and running CQR's businesses. This material, as I understand it, includes the nature of the outlets themselves, the fact that the home the accused lived in with his wife was mortgaged to provide financing to either purchase or run the business, and a document said to show that the accused received a substantial part of the funds obtained by the mortgage over the house with the balance of $1.398 million being paid to or on behalf of CQR.