R v Macdonald; R v Edward Obeid; R v Moses Obeid (No 16) [2020] NSWSC 1950

R v Macdonald; R v Edward Obeid; R v Moses Obeid (No 16) [2020] NSWSC 1950

Ms Davies' question about Voope Pty Ltd was admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the non-hearsay purpose of putting into context Edward Obeid's answer, which was capable of being an admission adverse to his interests; the question was capable of being understood as directed to his knowledge of affairs during the currency of the conspiracy, and his answer was capable of being understood as an implied recognition that Voope Pty Ltd was used by his sons for business purposes connected with exploiting coal mining potential associated with rural holdings owned by the Obeid family or their associates.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / Addendum Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Ms Davies' question was held admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for a non-hearsay purpose.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'admissions' 'admissibility of Previous Representations']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['hearsay' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'admissions' 'admissibility of Previous Representations']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Procedural Ruling / Addendum Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a previous representation said to have been made by Edward Obeid in an interview with Ms Anne Davies concerning his knowledge of Voope Pty Ltd was admissible.' "Whether Ms Davies' question, despite hearsay assertions, was admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for a non-hearsay purpose to put Edward Obeid's answer in context." "Whether Edward Obeid's answer had the capacity to be an admission adverse to his interests."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Davies' question about Voope Pty Ltd was admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the non-hearsay purpose of putting into context Edward Obeid's answer, which was capable of being an admission adverse to his interests; the question was capable of being understood as directed to his knowledge of affairs during the currency of the conspiracy, and his answer was capable of being understood as an implied recognition that Voope Pty Ltd was used by his sons for business purposes connected with exploiting coal mining potential associated with rural holdings owned by the Obeid family or their associates.

Court Disposition

Ms Davies' question was held admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for a non-hearsay purpose.

Orders

  • []