R v Macdonald; R v Edward Obeid; R v Moses Obeid (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1489

R v Macdonald; R v Edward Obeid; R v Moses Obeid (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1489

The Noble House meeting evidence was admissible against Mr Macdonald because the jury could accept evidence that an agreement was reached about his preselection and early retirement, and could use that evidence as probative of his belief that his parliamentary career was limited and of his possible motivation to participate in the alleged conspiracy. However, absent evidence that Edward Obeid or Moses Obeid knew of that agreement, the Noble House evidence was not shown to be probative of the existence of the conspiracy against them on that basis. Mr Iemma's evidence was admissible against all three accused because it was based on direct observation, was probative of Mr Macdonald's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence / Pre Trial or Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
The evidence is admissible against all three accused.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'admissibility' 'conspiracy' 'wilful Misconduct in Public Office' 'political Patronage and Motive']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['relevance' 'admissibility' 'conspiracy' 'wilful Misconduct in Public Office' 'political Patronage and Motive']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence / Pre Trial or Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the Noble House meeting, discussion of Mr Macdonald's future career, and the agreement reached at or after that meeting was relevant and admissible." 'Whether the Noble House meeting evidence was admissible only against Mr Macdonald or also against Edward Obeid and Moses Obeid as evidence of the existence and nature of the alleged conspiracy.' "Whether evidence from Mr Morris Iemma about ALP factions, the working relationship between Mr Macdonald and Edward Obeid, and Edward Obeid's support for Mr Macdonald was relevant and admissible against all accused."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Noble House meeting evidence was admissible against Mr Macdonald because the jury could accept evidence that an agreement was reached about his preselection and early retirement, and could use that evidence as probative of his belief that his parliamentary career was limited and of his possible motivation to participate in the alleged conspiracy. However, absent evidence that Edward Obeid or Moses Obeid knew of that agreement, the Noble House evidence was not shown to be probative of the existence of the conspiracy against them on that basis. Mr Iemma's evidence was admissible against all three accused because it was based on direct observation, was probative of Mr Macdonald's...

Court Disposition

The evidence is admissible against all three accused.

Orders

  • ['The Noble House meeting evidence is admissible against Mr Macdonald for the reasons identified by the Crown.' "Mr Iemma's evidence is admissible against all three accused, including Moses Obeid."]