Obeid v The Queen [2016] HCA 9

Obeid v The Queen [2016] HCA 9

The applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of the criminal trial pending his special leave application; neither of his contentions (regarding jurisdiction and public office) justified fragmenting the trial process, especially as his right to raise those issues could be preserved post-conviction. The balance of convenience, the absence of a substantial prospect of special leave being granted, and the policy against fragmenting criminal processes all weighed against granting a stay.

Parties
Applicant: Edward Moses Obeid; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Interlocutory Stay in High Court After Dismissal by Supreme Court of NSW and Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Special Leave to Appeal, Public Office Misconduct, Parliamentary Privilege
Criminal Law Procedure Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Special Leave to Appeal Public Office Misconduct Parliamentary Privilege

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Moses Obeid

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Interlocutory Stay in High Court After Dismissal by Supreme Court of NSW and Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a stay of criminal proceedings be granted pending determination of special leave to appeal?
  2. 2 Do the circumstances constitute 'exceptional' or 'extraordinary' grounds to justify a stay?
  3. 3 Does the subject matter of the charge fall within the exclusive cognisance of the Legislative Council?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of the criminal trial pending his special leave application; neither of his contentions (regarding jurisdiction and public office) justified fragmenting the trial process, especially as his right to raise those issues could be preserved post-conviction. The balance of convenience, the absence of a substantial prospect of special leave being granted, and the policy against fragmenting criminal processes all weighed against granting a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's summons filed on 17 December 2015 be dismissed.