Cassandra Sainsbury: Accused cocaine smuggler

Featured


So many questions on this one folks. I waited and hung back a few days to see what else was revealed to the public. Shame the way is being trickled out…

Not to sell papers or anything surely?

I personally feel she has been busted red handed and used a well-drilled script when caught.

Shame the family in OZ was NOT aware of it and spilled their guts as a family would do. Not smart though…Cheers Robbo

Please Make comment


ACCUSED Australian drug smuggler Cassie Sainsbury posted a series of cryptic social media comments in the lead-up to her ill-fated world trip, which culminated in her arrest at Colombia’s biggest airport last month.

It has already been reported that the 22-year-old Adelaide woman made a series of international

trips to and from Australia in the six months preceding her journey to South America, where authorities allegedly found almost 6kg of cocaine inside her suitcase on April 11.

But early this year an opportunity apparently arose that seemed too good for the former personal trainer to pass up.

In a strangely prophetic Instagram post, Ms Sainsbury appears to have been counting down the days until a life-changing event.

The now deleted January 10 post read: “50 days until I make the biggest move I’ve yet to do … 50 days until everything changes.”

She added the following hashtags: #newbeginnings #newyearnewme #2k17 #dreamjob #bondiliving #life #change #love #50daysleft #goodthingsarecoming.

On January 24, she wrote another post, which has also since been deleted, which read: “Moving interstate driving me cray cray! #save me! Not long before the big move now, super excited and can’t wait to leave so much baggage behind.”

Cassie Sainsbury pictured following her arrest at El Dorado International Airport on April 11. Picture: Supplied Source:AFP

Cassandra Sainsbury Instagram images. cassieleigh_p_t Source:Instagram

 

It is not clear when Ms Sainsbury departed from Australia or from which port but both Instagram posts contain hashtags indicating travel or relocation to Sydney, possibly around March 1 (when the 50 day count down ended).

Her social media trail places her in China later that month and in the US in early April.

On April 3, Ms Sainsbury instagrammed from Los Angeles airport, complaining about the temperature contrast between the two countries: “LAX — so busy yet, so organised. On another note. Going from China’s lovely 27 degree weather to LA’s 7 degree weather is killing me!”

She appears to have caught a connecting flight to Bogota from LA because authorities record her as having arrived in Colombia on the same day — April 3.

On April 8, she posted a photograph from Bogota along with the comment: “Can’t complain about an all expenses paid work trip, in which (sic) is mainly holiday very little work. It’s the simple things that are the true beauty in the world. Mother Nature has been putting on quite the show for me over here.”

This Jan 24 post mentions a move interstate.Source: Supplied

Cassie’s cryptic but prophetic January 10 Instagram post.Source: Supplied

 

Ms Sainsbury’s family has claimed she was on a working holiday to promote her personal training business — a claim which appears to be supported by Ms Sainsbury’s Instagram posts which are riddled with fitness-related hashtags.

But her fiance Scotty Broadbridge has told a completely different story, claiming she hadn’t done any personal training work for months and that her most recent job involved “helping to manage” a cleaning company.

“Although Cassie is a PT, she is not currently personal training and hasn’t been for 6 months. I don’t know why that was mentioned at all,” Mr Broadbridge wrote on Ms Sainsbury’s fundraising page before it was deactivated on Monday night after raising more than $4000.

“She helped manage a commercial cleaning business that had both national and international clients. Unfortunately it’s very easy for tourists to get targeted, especially in Colombia.”

Ms Sainsbury’s April 3 post from LAX.Source: Supplied

 

Ms Sainsbury’s April 3 post from LAX.Source:Supplied

 

Mr Broadbridge’s sister Jasmin also defended Ms Sainsbury on social media.

“We’re all supposed to unite in times like this but I’ve been reading the most hateful and negative comments that people have been writing about someone who is a total stranger to them,” she wrote on Facebook.

“You can assume what you want, but Cassie is a beautiful and strong person and everyone who knows her, even just a little bit, knows that there is absolutely no way she is guilty.”

Ms Sainsbury was moments from arriving at Gate 32 at Colombia’s El Dorado International Airport when narcotics police swooped on a tip-off from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Her luggage tags show she had successfully checked in to board Flight AV120 from Bogota to London’s Heathrow Airport, flying with Avianca Airways, Colombia’s national airline since 1919.

Cassie Sainsbury, 22, and her fiancee Scotty Broadbridge. Picture: Facebook Source: Facebook

 

Police allegedly found 5.8kg of cocaine wrapped in black plastic and stuffed into 15 boxes of headphones that she claimed to have bought on the cheap from a man she befriended who had been acting as her translator in the Colombian capital.

Ms Sainsbury told her mother Lisa Evans that she packed the headphones into her suitcase without checking them and had no knowledge of the hidden contraband.

“I can’t believe this has happened to an innocent young woman,” her grandmother Barbara Johns said.

“Anyone who knows Cassie, knows she did not do this. It can happen to anyone.”

Ms Sainsbury is currently awaiting trial in Bogota’s most notorious women’s prison, El Buen Pastor (which means “The Good Shepherd”), on drug trafficking charges and faces up to 25 years if convicted.

However that sentence is likely to be reduced to six years if she pleads guilty and four years if she agrees to identify others involved. The latter option puts Ms Sainsbury between a rock and a hard place, given that spilling the beans on alleged drug syndicate members could see her labelled a snitch, thereby endangering her life inside jail.

Accused drug mule’s fiance and lawyer address the media

Cassie Sainsbury’s fiance Scott Boradbridge says he will support the accused Adelaide drug mule

THE fiance of accused Adelaide drug mule Cassie Sainsbury has told a packed media conference he believes she is innocent and had no involvement with the drug trade.

Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Scott Broadbridge said he had “no doubt that Cassie is innocent of these charges and I will support her no matter how long this takes”.

But her Adelaide lawyer, Steven Kenny, who was hired by Ms Sainsbury in a phone call, said her court date could be two to three years away if her case went to trial.

“It won’t be speedy, that’s the advice I’ve had from Colombia,” he said.

Mr Broadbridge, who kept his head down as he read from a prepared statement, said he and “Cass” were engaged and he intended to marry her.

“I know that there are many unanswered questions in this case and I intend to work with the lawyers to get to the bottom of them,” he said.

Calling her “the delight of his life” he said he knew she was not a drug smuggler.

“I know that she is not involved in the drug trade, I know that she was not deliberately taking drugs or carrying drugs anywhere,” he said.

Mr Kenny, who defended former detainee David Hicks and was the first lawyer to visit Guantánamo Bay, said he had great faith in the Colombian legal system, which carried the presumption of innocence, and he asked the media to not prejudge his new client’s guilt or innocence.

“I would like to think Cassie’s defence will be run in a court in Colombia, not in the Adelaide media,” he said.

Scott Broadbridge, fiance of Cassie Sainsbury, with Adelaide lawyer Steven Kenny. Picture: Greg Higgs

Mr Broadbridge said he hoped to fly to Colombia to visit her soon, and to prove her innocence.

Mr Kenny could not answer questions about which cleaning company Ms Sainsbury worked for, who bought her ticket out of Colombia in Hong Kong or how long she had been travelling, and said detailed questions such as this would be followed up through her Colombian legal team.

He said the first thing he could do from Adelaide was to make sure she had good defence in Colombia. Mr Kenny accepted the job pro bono because he had legal friends in Colombia and felt he could help.

“We are working with them and taking what we think are appropriate steps,” he said.

The aspiring model and fitness trainer was arrested at an airport in Colombia with 5.8kg of cocaine in her luggage. Despite the evidence against her, Mr Broadbridge said he loved her and believed in her and was doing everything to try to get her out.

Ingrid Hernandes, Bogota hotel manager discusses Cassandra Sainsbury stay

Ms Sainsbury, 22, is being held in Bogota’s El Buen Pastor women’s jail after she was busted with the cocaine — which was hidden inside packages of headphones — in her luggage as she was about to fly out of Colombia.

Mr Broadbridge said that despite the collapse of her gym, personal trainer Ms Sainsbury was debt-free when she jetted overseas on the ill-fated trip.

“There absolutely were no debts. She ran a business and it didn’t work out. She’s just an ordinary girl with aspirations,” he said.

“I’m just scared for her and don’t want to jeopardise anything as it’s early stages. We’re worried for her future, she’s not doing great.”

But his decision to “break his silence” drew criticism from members of Ms Sainsbury’s family, who have been told not to comment by her Colombian lawyer. Mr Kenny said some of the reporting in the media could damage Ms Sainsbury’s case and that he and Mr Broadbridge were having discussions with Ms Sainbury’s family.

Mr Kenny said he was asked by Ms Sainsbury in a brief phone call to act for her and he had no argument with Sydney lawyer, Jay Williams, who had until now been her only Australian lawyer.

“Jay is a barrister, he’s not a solicitor, and he is not in Adelaide which I think is why Scott came to see me,” he said.

Asked about her state of mind, he said it was a short call but that Ms Sainsbury was “a young woman in a foreign jail, in a foreign country, you can draw your own conclusions from that.”

She was being visited regularly by Australian consular officials who were reporting back to the family on her welfare.

Cassie Sainsbury with the 5.8kg of cocaine she is accused of smuggling out of Columbia. Photo: Columbia Antinarcotics Police.

Sister Khala Sainsbury said the truth would come out soon.

“It has gone too far,” she said of rumours coming out of Yorketown, on Yorke Peninsula.

The allegations first emerged when a woman, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Advertiser Ms Sainsbury left the Yorke Peninsula owing several people money.

Others have backed the claims.

But the landlord of the Yorketown gym previously used by Ms Sainsbury, and the father of her ex-boyfriend, say she had no debts with them.

On Thursday, Nick Paphitis said Ms Sainsbury had paid all her rent before she moved to Adelaide.

Claims she owed ex-boyfriend Luke Tape money borrowed to help set up Yorke’s Gym were rejected by his father, Richard.

Cassie Sainsbury: What we know so far

 

It comes as her Bogota lawyer Orlando Herran said Australian diplomats were trying to convince Colombian authorities to let Ms Sainsbury serve her almost certain jail sentence at home.

She is being advised to accept the charges against her in order to reduce her sentence after she was caught with the drugs.

Mr Herran said diplomats were working on a deal that would see her move from El Buen Pastor women’s jail to one in Australia, but only after a conviction was recorded.

Ms Sainsbury posted a series of cryptic social media comments in the lead-up to her ill-fated world trip, which culminated in her arrest at Colombia’s biggest airport last month.

It has already been reported that the Adelaide woman made a series of international trips to and from Australia in the six months preceding her journey to South America.

But early this year, an opportunity apparently arose that seemed too good for the former personal trainer to pass up.

Cassandra Sainsbury with her fiance Scott Broadbridge. Picture: Facebook

In a strangely prophetic Instagram post, Ms Sainsbury appears to have been counting down the days until a life-changing event.

The now deleted January 10 post read: “50 days until I make the biggest move I’ve yet to do … 50 days until everything changes.”

She added the following hashtags: #newbeginnings #newyearnewme #2k17 #dreamjob #bondiliving #life #change #love #50daysleft #goodthingsarecoming.

On January 24, she wrote another post, which has also since been deleted, which read: “Moving interstate driving me cray cray! #save me! Not long before the big move now, super excited and can’t wait to leave so much baggage behind.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said Australian consular staff were continuing to provide assistance to Ms Sainsbury, but did not have an embassy in Bogota and the assistance was being organised “from outside Colombia”.

update

How Cassandra Sainsbury’s ticket reportedly got her caught

Cassandra Sainsbury’s father wants his daughter to come home
Charis Chang and Sarah Blake in Bogota

THE father of accused Aussie drug smuggler Cassandra Sainsbury has broken his silence, three weeks after his daughter landed in a Colombian prison.

 

Stuart Sainsbury told Nine News he is standing by the 22-year-old because “a father’s love is unconditional and never stops, regardless of what happens”.

He said he does not believe she is “a drug mule”.

“I don’t believe she was a drug mule, she’s just my kid. What parent thinks their kid is a drug mule? I just love her and I can’t change what’s happened. I just have to be here when she comes home.”

Earlier, he told reporters “I don’t want to be tied up in all this,” the Mail Online reported.

“Listen, whatever is going on has nothing to do with me, and I have nothing to say about it,” he said from his home in Yorketown, South Australia.

“You can ring my lawyer if you don’t understand me. It’s got nothing to do with me.”

He told the Adelaide Advertiser that his “love doesn’t change no matter what (your children) do” and said no Australian officials had been in touch with him.

The comments follow revelations that Cassie was caught because the US Drug Enforcement Agency alerted Colombian authorities to their suspicions about her plane ticket, reports suggest.

Ms Sainsbury, 22, was arrested at El Dorado International Airport in Bogota on April 12 after a tip-off about the 5.8kg of cocaine allegedly hidden inside what she thought were 18 boxes of headphones in her suitcase.

The South Australian is now being held in a women’s jail in Colombia and is reportedly struggling to adjust to her new life inside prison.

An American woman who walked free from El Buen Pastor prison on Tuesday after serving a 17 month sentence, told Newscorp she had helped support Cassie, along with another woman inside the jail.

“Because she is so young there are a lot of people trying to take advantage of her,” said the woman, who did not wish to be named.

Stuart Sainsbury, the father of accused Aussie drug smuggler, Cassandra. Picture: FacebookSource:Facebook

“Not only that, when she was at the police station they took most of her stuff — all of her clothes, her money.”

The woman said Cassie was receiving some support from Australian consular staff but was told she would only receive a visit every few months.

“She’s just wearing a sweater and pants and a top, the same ones. I offered her something but she said no thank you.”

Meanwhile it has emerged that Ms Sainsbury may have been arrested after a tip-off from US authorities.

“We found her because of an alert from the DEA (US Drug Enforcement Agency),” Bogota airport’s narcotics chief, Commander Rodrigo Soler, told News Corp Australia Network.

He said she had cleared security, checked her bag and was minutes away from boarding her flight when the alert came up.

“The alert said check this person so we pulled her aside and we searched her luggage and we arrested her. We asked ‘is this your bag, did you pack this?’. She said ‘yes’.”

Soler told The Australian Ms Sainsbury’s ticket, which was bought at the last minute by an unknown party in Hong Kong for a trip from Australia to Bogota via London, was one of several red flags that caused North American agencies to alert Colombian police.

The Adelaide woman’s family insists she is innocent and was set up by a Colombian man she met after arriving in the South American country on April 3 during a working holiday.

They say she bought the headphones from him to give as gifts to family and friends at her upcoming wedding.

A photo released by Colombia's National Police press shows Australian Cassandra Sainsbury in handcuffs after she was arrested at the international airport in Bogota, Colombia. Picture: Colombia's National Police via AP

A photo released by Colombia’s National Police press shows Australian Cassandra Sainsbury in handcuffs after she was arrested at the international airport in Bogota, Colombia. Picture: Colombia’s National Police via APSource:AP

An expert on the South American drug trade says there was no way the former fitness trainer would have the connections to sell almost $2 million worth of cocaine, and someone must have been waiting to receive it in Australia.

Rusty Young, wrote the book Marching Powder and is about to release a book Colombiano after living in Colombia for eight years. He said the South Australian woman’s story didn’t add up.

“Her version of events is not consistent with the way drug rings operate,” Mr Young told news.com.au yesterday.

“If you were planting $1 million worth of drugs in someone’s baggage, how were you intending to recover the drugs back in Australia?”

Ms Sainsbury’s sister Khala posted on a fundraising page that the 22-year-old was detained for drug trafficking at the airport in Bogota “waiting to depart back to Australia”. But it’s since been reported that Cassie may have intended to continue on her working holiday to make presentations in London, France and Hong Kong.

Her sister said she was not due back in Australia until Easter Saturday, April 15.

It’s unclear where the drugs were ultimately headed but Mr Young believes if they were being shipped to Australia, someone would have been waiting for them to come in.

“There’s no way a 22-year-old could have the connections to distribute and sell almost 6kg of cocaine,” he said.

“There must have been someone in Australia to receive those drugs.”

Mr Young also dismissed fears that Ms Sainsbury could be targeted by cartels while imprisoned in Colombia.

“That’s absolute nonsense,” he said. “Cartels don’t run drug mules through airports, they run tonnes of cocaine. There’s no professional Colombian organisation behind this.”

Despite concerns about Ms Sainsbury’s safety, Mr Young said he thought she would be physically safe in the overcrowded El Buen Pastor women’s jail.

“They would have put her in the foreign section with foreign inmates,” he said.

Australian diplomatic staff have also reportedly delivered her a mattress and blanket to use in her cell.

Mr Young said he also thought Ms Sainsbury would get a fair trial in Colombia, although justice would be slow.

Even if she plead guilty, Mr Young said it would probably still take six to nine months for her to go through the justice system. A trial would probably take three years just to reach a verdict and would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Mr Young said his thoughts were with Ms Sainsbury and her family.

“They are in for a long and difficult journey,” he said.

A handout photo made available by the press office of the Colombian Anti-narcotics Police, on 01 May 2017 shows Australian citizen Cassandra Sainsbury during her detention with 5.8 kilos of cocaine at the International Airport the Dorado, in Bogota, Colombia, on 11 April 2017. Picture: EPA/Col Anti-narcotics Police

A handout photo made available by the press office of the Colombian Anti-narcotics Police, on 01 May 2017 shows Australian citizen Cassandra Sainsbury during her detention with 5.8 kilos of cocaine at the International Airport the Dorado, in Bogota, Colombia, on 11 April 2017. Picture: EPA/Col Anti-narcotics PoliceSource:AAP

Ms Sainsbury’s family has previously said the 22-year-old travelled to Colombia on April 3 for a working holiday. It’s unclear what visa she was travelling on and what job she was doing overseas.

There is no working holiday maker visa arrangement between Australia and Colombia, and working visas require Australians to prove they have a skill set Colombians don’t possess.

“The most common work visa would be for English teachers,” Mr Young said.

But Australians can enter Colombia for 90 days as a visitor without a visa.

It has also emerged that Ms Sainsbury was reportedly arrested following a tip-off from international drug agencies and her travel plans had raised suspicions, anti narco trafficking control, Colonel Rodrigo Soler, told The Australian.

The South Australian was arrested minutes before she was due to fly back to Australia from El Dorado International Airport in Bogota.

Colombian police have released a photo of the young Aussie in handcuffs standing in front of a table lined with 18 packages, which Ms Sainsbury thought were headphones she bought as wedding gifts and presents for her friends and family.

Jorge Mendoza, the ports and airports director for Colombia’s anti-narcotic police, says he doubted Ms Sainsbury didn’t know the drugs were hidden inside the packages.

“She could possibly be a drug mule,” Mendoza told ABC radio through an interpreter on Tuesday.

“In going through security we found she had 18 packets inside her luggage, which even before opening it we found covered in plastic.

“Her explanation is not credible. Everyone we catch says they didn’t know it was in their luggage.”

Lieutenant Colonel Jorge Triana, head of the anti-narcotics police at Bogota’s international airport was also sceptical about the Australian’s innocence.

He said Ms Sainsbury’s claims that she was deceived are probably untrue and in any case don’t excuse her actions.

“Everyone who is caught says exactly the same thing,” said Lt Colonel Triana, who added that many foreigners are lured by false promises of fast fortunes.”

As tourism to Colombia has boomed over the past decade, the country’s drug cartels are increasingly recruiting foreigners to smuggle cocaine out of the country. Police have arrested 19 foreign drug mules this year alone, Lt Colonel Triana said.

The Adelaide woman’s family insists she is innocent and was set up by a Colombian man she met after arriving in the South American country on April 3 during a working holiday.

But public comments made by her family about her case may have unwittingly put the 22-year-old in danger, The Australian has reported.

Senior Australian lawyers familiar with the case told the paper that if the cartels found out what Ms Sainsbury’s mother had been saying, she could be in danger inside the notorious El Buen Pastor jail where she is being held.

El Buen Pastor prison for women in Bogota, Colombia. Source: Roger Triana

El Buen Pastor prison for women in Bogota, Colombia. Source: Roger TrianaSource:Supplied

El Buen Pastor is Bogota’s biggest women’s prison, and inmates live in overcrowded and filthy conditions alongside violent criminals, their children and babies and corrupt guards who steal food brought to prisoners by their families.

On Monday, Ms Sainsbury’s mother Lisa Evans told KIIS that her daughter was facing a potential jail sentence of between 18 to 25 years, but if she pleaded guilty this would be reduced.

She said the minimum sentence was six years but this could be reduced to four if Ms Sainsbury provided information about the man who gave her the drugs.

Ms Evans said Cassie had trusted the man who gave her the drugs, and he had been acting as her translator in Colombia.

“He had been helping her all week, taking her around and showing her places, and just being a nice guy,” Ms Evans said.

It is understood lawyers in Australia have now advised the family not to make any further public comments and to take down an online fundraising campaign on FundRazr.

The campaign has raised more than $4000 for Ms Sainsbury and remains active, although many of the posts express scepticism about Cassie’s story.

Cassandra Sainsbury was arrested on drug charges in Colombia.

Cassandra Sainsbury was arrested on drug charges in Colombia.Source:Instagram

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine and its police among the best-trained to detect and stop drug smuggling thanks in part to billions of dollars in US anti-narcotics aid that has strengthened law enforcement.

— With AP/AAP


Cassie Sainsbury Faces Up To 25 Years For 5.8kg Cocaine Haul

The Adelaide personal trainer says she was set up by a man she had just met.

01/05/2017 10:22 AM AEST | Updated 01/05/2017 2:30 PM AEST

GoFundMe

An Adelaide based personal trainer and volunteer firefighter is facing up to 25 years in a Colombian prison after 5.8 kilograms of cocaine was found in her suitcase.

Cassandra Sainsbury was arrested for drug trafficking offences at El Dorado International Airport in Bogotá when she went to catch her flight back to Australia following an eight-day working holiday in Colombia on April 11.

But her family say she is “naive” and had been set up by a man she had met who gave her what she believed was a package of headphones.

Sainsbury’s sister, Khala, told the media that a man she met while travelling offered to bulk buy the headphones cheaply for her, which she wanted as gifts for her bridal party at her upcoming wedding to fiance Scott Broadbridge.

Anyone that knows her would say she is a kind, loving, happy kind of girl.”

“Cassie, being young, said she’d do it. And it came to her already packaged and sealed so she put it straight in her suitcase not thinking,” Khala said. “She’s very naive.”

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed to HuffPost Australia that they are assisting an Australian woman arrested in Colombia, but declined to give further details “due to our privacy obligations”.

Colombia is the world’s largest cocaine producer, providing more than half of the world’s illicit supply — 487 tons annually. Profits from the drug amount to around 1 per cent of the nation’s GDP and provide livelihoods for around 65,000 farming families in remote areas, according to UN estimates.

But the Government has cracked down on the drug trade in recent years in an attempt to clean up its image, with heavy penalties for those caught trafficking. The maximum penalty for trafficking cocaine is 25 years.

The Adelaide woman’s mother, Lisa Evans, told KIIS FM that Sainsbury is innocent, but is considering pleading guilty to reduce her sentence.

Facebook
Cassie Sainsbury with her fiance and “love of her life” Scott Broadbridge. The couple were preparing to wed early next year.

“If she pleads guilty the minimum is six years,” Evans said.

“If Cassie gives information about the person that gave her the package it may come down to four.”

Evans reportedly told Channel Nine’s Today Show she could not believe someone could do this to her daughter.

“Cassie is just, ‘I didn’t do it mum, you have got to get me out’ and crying hysterically,” Evans said.

Sainsbury has been denied bail and is currently in the notorious El Buen Pastor women’s prison, where she is sharing a cell with up to 250 women in squalid conditions. She is due to face trial in two months’ time, her family says.

The 22-year-old’s sister has set up a fundraising page to raise money towards Cassie’s legal costs.

“Cassie would never do anything like what she has been accused off,” Khala wrote on the page.

“Anyone that knows her would say she is a kind, loving, happy kind of girl. She would help anyone out in need.”

But the page has drawn criticism from some posters, who accused the family “begging” for money

After four days, the campaign had only raised $2,610 towards its $15,000 goal.


Cassandra Sainsbury: Accused cocaine smuggler ‘would have known drugs were in her bag’

03/05/17

An Australian woman used unsophisticated methods to try to conceal 18 packets of cocaine in her luggage and her family’s claims she was set up are not believable, Colombian drug authorities say.

Key points:

  • Colombian drug police say Australian woman would have known the drugs were in the bag
  • Cocaine in headphones “not really a very sophisticated mode of concealment”
  • Cassandra Sainsbury faces up to 20 years in jail

Adelaide’s Cassandra Sainsbury, 22, was arrested minutes before boarding a flight at Bogota’s El Dorado International Airport with 5.8 kilograms of cocaine wrapped in plastics bags and packed within boxes of headphones.

Family of the former personal trainer said she was an unwitting drug mule and the headphones were bought as gifts for bridal party guests.

Colonel Jorge Mendoza, the head of ports and airports for the Colombian drug enforcement police department, dismissed the family’s version of events, saying she would have known the narcotics were in her bags.

“There was not really a very sophisticated mode of concealment,” he said.

“The drugs were wrapped in bags, 18 packets as I said previously, inside her suitcase.

“So, it is difficult to say that she did not know that the substance was inside her suitcase.”

Ms Sainsbury’s sister Khala said the 22-year-old was in Colombia for a working holiday and the headphones were purchased from a contact.

Colonel Mendoza has previously said the arrest came as the result of a tip-off and was indistinguishable from a growing number of drug cases involving foreigners.

Colonel Mendoza has said he was confident the seizure would lead to jail time and depending on the quality of the drugs, the maximum penalty could be 20 years’ imprisonment.

A Colombian lawyer advised the family she plead guilty to reduce the sentence to a possible six years.

Ms Sainsbury’s family has raised thousands of dollars online to fund her legal defence and support her.

Ms Sainsbury has been transferred to the Colombian capital’s notorious El Buen Pastor women’s prison.

Joanna Adams, the daughter of a lawyer who has given legal advice to Ms Sainsbury, has told the ABC’s AM program her father said the Australian “has her up and downs”.

“Some days she’s good and some days she’s very bad,” Ms Adams said.

The 22-year-old was preparing to board a flight to London on her way back to Australia when she was arrested.

AP/ABC


Save

Benjamin Moorhouse filmed more than 200 people in Sydney public toilets, court told


Man secretly filmed more than 200 people in Sydney public toilets, court told

 A man secretly filmed more than 200 people, including a girl and boy, in Sydney public toilets for his own “sexual gratification,” a court has been told.

Benjamin Moorhouse allegedly placed secret cameras under the sink of toilets at Parramatta and North Sydney train stations, and at a disabled toilet at Westfield Parramatta shopping centre, in February and March.

The 40-year-old, who was arrested on March 22, appeared at Parramatta Local Court on Wednesday, where his lawyer indicated he would plead guilty to all charges.

Moorhouse is charged with five counts of filming a person in a private act for the purpose of “sexual arousal or sexual gratification”.

Two of those charges are aggravated because the alleged victims, a boy and a girl, were under 16.

Moorhouse is also charged with three counts of installing a device to film people without consent.

It is further alleged Moorhouse “engaged in a private act” without the consent of the victims.

The 40-year-old, who was dressed in a suit when he appeared before a magistrate on Wednesday, later ran from the court complex wearing a hooded jumper, jeans and sunglasses.

 

One of the devices police allege was used for the filmingOne of the devices police allege was used for the filming Photo: NSW Police

Police say they found Moorhouse with a camera similar to those uncovered at the stations when they arrested him outside his Parramatta home a month ago.

Almost 100 people were filmed at a Parramatta train station toilet between February 13 and 14, while another 23 were filmed on the morning of February 10 in a toilet at North Sydney station, according to court documents.

The cameras were found by train staff.

About 100 people were also allegedly filmed in a Westfield Parramatta disabled toilet between March 17 and 20.

Moorhouse’s bail was continued until his next court appearance on May 31.

AAP


 

Bourke Street Mow down Tragedy by Dimitrious Gargasoulas…. Standby (lost last edit)


Accused Bourke St driver Dimitrious Gargasoulas tells court ‘I am the saviour’

Posted about 5 hours ago

The man accused of killing six people and injuring dozens of pedestrians during a driving rampage through Melbourne’s CBD has told a court he is “the saviour”.

For the first time since he allegedly drove his car through the Bourke Street mall in January, Dimitrious Gargasoulas appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court via video-link on unrelated charges.

The 26-year-old’s lawyer had previously told the court that he had been too ill to attend.

Dressed in a black jumper and white t-shirt, Gargasoulas smiled during the brief hearing and interjected on several occasions.

He said, “Your Honour, I wanted to tell you something”, and later spoke about the Bible and the Koran, yelling, “Aboriginal law is identical to Muslim law”.

His lawyer spoke over the top of him, warning him that members of the media were in court.

Gargasoulas then said: “All the law is illegal.”

Later, he said: “Your Honour, did you know the Muslim faith is the correct faith according to the whole world? And I am not guilty.”

Before his video-link was switched off, he called out: “I am the saviour.”

Gargasoulas faces charges for theft and other offences allegedly committed in early January and late last year, including driving on the wrong side of the road to evade police in St Kilda.

The matter has been adjourned until May.

Gargasoulas is also due to reappear in court in December, for a separate hearing in relation to six charges of murder, 28 of attempted murder and conduct endangering life following the Bourke Street tragedy in January.


2017 Melbourne car attack

2017 Melbourne-Bourke Street Car Attacks Arrest.jpg

Police arrest the alleged perpetrator at 555 Bourke St

Location Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date 20 January 2017 (2017-01-20)
1:30 pm (AEDT)
Attack type Vehicular attack
Deaths 6
Non-fatal injuries 36
Perpetrator Dimitrious Gargasoulas[1]

On 20 January 2017, around 1:30 pm AEDT, a car was driven into pedestrians in the CBD of Melbourne, Australia. Six people were killed and at least thirty others wounded, three of whom sustained critical injuries.[2][3] Police have alleged that the victims were intentionally hit, and have charged the driver of the vehicle, Dimitrious Gargasoulas, with six counts of murder.[4]

Background

The red Holden Commodore car used in the attack was stolen from a man who lives in the same block of flats as Gargasoulas. Upon being interviewed, the car owner alleged that on the night of 18 January 2017, Gargasoulas entered his flat with a bible, sat down, started burning it and threw it into his face. After this, he said that he flicked it on the floor and was then punched by Gargasoulas.[5]

It is alleged that Gargasoulas stabbed his brother in a flat in Windsor in the early hours of 20 January 2017, leaving the brother in critical condition.[5] He then took his pregnant girlfriend hostage; she was later released on the Bolte Bridge.[6]

Attack

There are videos of the man driving and behaving erratically at the intersection of Flinders Street, St Kilda Road and Swanston Street, outside the entrance of Flinders Street railway station. Two men, year 12 student Tevita Mahina and his cousin Isaac Tupou attempted to stop him, hitting the windscreen with a baseball bat. The driver continued north-bound up Swanston St western-side footpath at speed towards the Bourke Street Mall, turned left onto Bourke Street southern-side footpath and struck more than 20 pedestrians. The car was brought to a halt and the driver was shot in the arm by a police critical incident response team and arrested in front of 555 Bourke Street.[7] A child and two adults died at the scene,[8] while another man died in hospital before the end of the day, and a three-month-old baby boy the evening after the attack.[9] A sixth person died on 30 January.[10]

Victims

Floral tributes to victims of the attack at a memorial at the Western end of the Bourke Street Mall.

Among the victims was a 10-year-old girl, who died on 20 January,[11] as well as a three-month-old baby boy who died on 21 January. The others were a 25-year-old man, a 22-year-old woman, a 33-year-old man, and a 33-year-old woman.[12][13][10]

A memorial for the victims was held in Federation Square on 23 January,[14] and floral tributes were left by members of the public at nine locations along the Bourke Street Mall.[15] On 30 January it was announced that a permanent memorial garden would be established, and that donations approaching AU$1,000,000 had been made to the Bourke Street Fund for the families of the victims.[16] On 31 January, the inorganic tributes were removed from the mall for storage by the Melbourne City Council, and the floral tributes taken for composting for the Victims of Crime memorial near State Parliament.[17]

Perpetrator

Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Graham Ashton confirmed that 26-year-old Dimitrious “Jimmy” Gargasoulas[18][19] had previously been remanded into custody and was known to police having a history of illicit drug use, family violence, and mental health problems.[20]

In the days before the attack, Gargasoulas began to post messages on Facebook about “religion, God, Satan, heaven and hell”, which writers for The Age described as “rambling and often nonsensical”.[5] According to the Daily Express and Greece based TornosNews.gr, the perpetrator is a GreekTongan Australian.

Gargasoulas’ father told Seven News “he’s not the Jimmy I used to know” and he would “scratch his son off his books”, while his mother told News.com.au she is ashamed to be his mum, and she wanted her son to “die in hell”.[21]

Police reported that the perpetrator was “not on our books as having any connection with terrorism … He has been coming to our attention more recently, over recent days, in relation to assaults, family violence related assaults”.[19] The perpetrator had allegedly stabbed his younger brother for being gay.[22]

According to an eyewitness, Gargasoulas repeatedly shouted “Allahu Akbar”, often linked to Islamic terrorism. Police later asked Melbourne Herald Sun reporter Andrea Hanblin to remove her video interview of the eyewitness who made these claims.[23][24]

Timeline of events

14 January 2017
  • Police charge Gargasoulas at Prahran police station with speeding on the wrong side of the road and ignoring a police direction to stop. Police oppose bail, but Gargasoulas is granted bail for a 20 January court date.[25]
18 January 2017
  • Gargasoulas attacks Gavin Wilson, his mother’s ex-partner, by thrusting a burning Bible in his face and stealing his car.[26]
19 January 2017
  • 9:26 pm: Gargasoulas ‘checks in’ at Dogs Bar, St Kilda, on Facebook, posting: “Thinking. About what to do with them lol.”[27]
  • 10:00 pm: Gargasoulas is refused entry to Dogs Bar as he is suspected to be under the influence.
20 January 2017
  • 12:30 am: Gargasoulas returns to Dogs Bar, in a maroon-coloured car believed to be the same car he stole from Wilson, later to be used in the attack. Patrons report that he smashes glasses and plates.[27]
  • 2:15 am: Police are called to an address in Raleigh Street, Windsor, after reports are lodged of two men fighting. Both victim and Gargasoulas are gone by the time police arrive.
  • 8.04 am: Gargasoulas is spotted driving in the background of a Today “live cross” which is reporting on the Windsor stabbing. The man rolls down the car window and waves his hat at the news camera.[28]
  • 11:30 am: Police follow the car along tram tracks in Clarendon Street in South Melbourne and unsuccessfully attempt to arrest Gargasoulas at a South Wharf intersection.
  • 11:45 am: Police spot the car weaving through traffic on Williamstown Road in Yarraville, west of Melbourne. Police pull back due to safety concerns as the car is being driven “erratically and dangerously.” The police air wing tracks the car as it moves toward the city.[29]
  • 1:30 pm: Emergency services are flooded with calls with reports of a car doing burnouts outside Flinders Street Station.
  • 1:33 pm: The car in question drives north up Swanston Street.[30]
  • 1:35 pm: The car then allegedly struck a number of pedestrians in the vicinity of Bourke Street Mall, before proceeding further along Bourke Street, past intersection with Queen Street.
  • 1:37 pm: Reports of multiple shots fired, Gargasoulas is pulled from the car on William Street.
  • 2:30 pm: Ambulance Victoria state that they are treating 20 people in Bourke Street, many of them sustaining serious injuries.
  • 2:30 pm: Victoria Police release a statement confirming that the situation has been “contained”, one person has been arrested and another dead.
  • 3:20 pm: Police confirm at a press conference that three people have died and the incident was not terrorism-related.
  • 9:00 pm: Police confirm that a fourth person had died in hospital.
21 January 2017
  • 10:53 pm: Police confirm that a fifth person (a three-month-old child) had died in hospital. [31]
23 January 2017
  • Gargasoulas is excused from court by the magistrate, claiming that he is feeling unwell. He is charged with five counts of murder.[32]
30 January 2017
  • Police confirm a 33 year old woman has died in hospital due to her injuries. This raises the death toll to 6.

Responses

The Royal Children’s Hospital treated many children injured in the attack

Police urged the public to share their testimonies and collaborated with over 300 witnesses.[33] Graham Ashton, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner, was quick to dismiss claims the attack was an act of terror, but supposed it instead a consequence of an alleged stabbing which had developed into a crime spree. Victoria Police maintain religion was not a significant motivation.[34] In an interview the day after the attack, Andrew Crisp, Deputy Police Commissioner, stated that police were hoping to interview and charge the suspect later in the day. He said that the fact that the suspect had been out on bail would be looked into by police. He congratulated everyone who dealt with the situation, stating “We saw the best of people yesterday. The support they gave to people on the street, it was amazing.”[35]

Politicians

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten offered their prayers and deepest sympathies to the victims of the attack and their families.[36]

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews stated that “this was a terrible crime – a senseless, evil act” and promised that “justice will be done”.[37] Then the Victorian Government established a fund to provide financial assistance for the families of the deceased, and made an initial donation of $100,000.[38]

A review of the Victorian bail law will be undertaken.[39]

See also

References

  1. Jump up ^ David Hurley, Shannon Deery, Cassie Zervos and Kara Irving (21 January 2017). “Melbourne CBD rampage driver Dimitrious Gargasoulas allegedly warned ‘I’ll take you all out’ in chilling Facebook post”. Herald Sun. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  2. Jump up ^ Butt, Craig (20 January 2017). “As it happened: CBD horror, four dead, 31 hospitalised as car knocks down pedestrians”. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  3. Jump up ^ “Four dead in man’s Melbourne crime spree”. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  4. Jump up ^ “Bourke Street attack: Sixth murder charge for Dimitrious ‘Jimmy’ Gargasoulas”. The Age. 31 March 2017. Retrieved 31 March 2017. 
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b c “Bourke Street driver identified as James ‘Jimmy’ Gargasoulas”, Tammy Mills, Beau Donelly and Chris Vedelago, The Age, 20 January 2017.
  6. Jump up ^ “‘Die in hell’: Parents disown alleged rampage driver”. au.news.yahoo.com. 21 January 2017. Retrieved 26 January 2017. 
  7. Jump up ^ “Four dead in man’s Melbourne crime spree”, AAP, 20 January 2017.
  8. Jump up ^ “Death toll could rise from Vic car attack”. yahoo.com. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  9. Jump up ^ “Melbourne car attack: Bourke Street death toll reaches five after three-month-old baby dies”. ABC News. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b McKay, Zervos, Holly, Cassie. “Blackburn South woman dies in hospital after Bourke St rampage”. Herald Sun. Retrieved 31 January 2017. 
  11. Jump up ^ https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bourke-street-chaos-10yearold-girl-thalia-hakin-killed-in-cbd-carnage-20170121-gtw40v.html
  12. Jump up ^ Miletic, Carolyn Webb, Daniella (22 January 2017). “Bourke Street attack: City in mourning after baby boy dies, taking death toll to five”. 
  13. Jump up ^ “Two victims of CDB rampage named”. Herald Sun. 22 January 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2017. 
  14. Jump up ^ Burin and staff, Margaret (24 January 2017). “Melbourne car attack: Bourke Street victims remembered at vigil in Federation Square”. ABC News. 
  15. Jump up ^ DAVIES, HAMBLIN, FLOWER, HURLEY, BRIDGET, ANDREA, WAYNE, DAVID (23 January 2017). “Love flows for CBD massacre victims”. Herald Sun. 
  16. Jump up ^ “Bourke Street tributes left for victims of attack to be removed as appeal nears $1 million”. ABC News. 30 January 2017. 
  17. Jump up ^ Woods, Emily (31 January 2017). “One bunch at a time, Bourke Street’s floral memorial is carefully moved on”. The Age. 
  18. Jump up ^ “How The Bourke Street Rampage Was Quickly Claimed To Be ‘Islamic Terrorism'”. 
  19. ^ Jump up to: a b “Driver accused of deadly carnage in Melbourne CBD named”, Herald Sun, Andie Hamblin, Padraic Murphy, Mark Buttler, 20 January 2017.
  20. Jump up ^ Ltd, Australian News Channel Pty. “Four killed in Melbourne CBD attack”. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  21. Jump up ^ “‘His dad called me an Aussie sl*t,’ says old friend of Melbourne driver”. NewsComAu. Retrieved 2 February 2017. 
  22. Jump up ^ “‘No one could’ve predicted what he did'”. Retrieved 30 January 2017. 
  23. Jump up ^ “BREAKING: Terror Attack in Australia? Vehicle Plows into Pedestrians in Melbourne”. Homeland Security. Retrieved 2017-04-12. 
  24. Jump up ^ Lion, Patrick (2017-01-20). “Police deny Melbourne rampage was terrorism after witness ‘heard Allahu Akbar”‘”. mirror. Retrieved 2017-04-12. 
  25. Jump up ^ Cooper, Adam (23 January 2017). “Bourke Street: Alleged killer refuses to appear in court”. The Age. Retrieved 23 January 2017. 
  26. Jump up ^ “Melbourne CBD attack: Timeline that led to Bourke Street tragedy”. 20 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  27. ^ Jump up to: a b “Melbourne CBD horror: Driver seen at Dogs Bar before Bourke Street attack”. 21 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  28. Jump up ^ “Bourke Street tragedy: Driver appeared on TV hours before pedestrians killed”. 21 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  29. Jump up ^ “Melbourne car incident: What happened where?”. 20 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  30. Jump up ^ “CCTV footage shows pedestrians dodging Melbourne driver”. ABC. 20 January 2017. Retrieved 20 January 2017. 
  31. Jump up ^ “Five deceased following Bourke Street Mall incident in Melbourne”. Victoria Police. 21 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  32. Jump up ^ Cooper, Adam (23 January 2017). “Bourke Street: Alleged killer refuses to appear in court”. Retrieved 25 January 2017. 
  33. Jump up ^ “Melbourne car attack: Leaders pay respects to Bourke St victims, Premier mulls changes to bail laws”, Loretta Florance and Frances Bell, ABC News, 22 January 2017.
  34. Jump up ^ “Four dead after shots fired and car rampage in Melbourne CBD”, Andrew Koubaridis, Debbie Schipp, Matt Young, Emma Reynolds, news.com.au, 22 January 2017.
  35. Jump up ^ “Four killed, 30 injured after car mows down pedestrians in Melbourne”, Helen Davidson, Calla Wahlquist and agencies, The Guardian, 21 January 2017.
  36. Jump up ^ “Australian leaders react to the car rampage in Melbourne’s CBD”. The Canberra Times. 20 January 2017. Retrieved 21 January 2017. 
  37. Jump up ^ “Statement on Bourke Street”, Daniel Andrews, 20 January 2017.
  38. Jump up ^ “The Bourke Street Fund”, State Government of Victoria.
  39. Jump up ^ “Deadly Bourke St rampage prompts bail law reform in Victoria”. ABC News. 23 January 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2017. 

Save

Save

39 dead in New Year ‘terror attack’ on Istanbul nightclub Reina


January 1 2017 – 9:06PM

Istanbul, Turkey nightclub attack: more than a dozen foreigners among the dead, say officials

Istanbul:  Police in Istanbul launched a manhunt on Sunday for a gunman who killed at least 39 people, many of them foreigners, at a nightclub packed with New Year’s revellers, in an attack officials described as a terrorist act.

The gunman shot his way into the Reina nightclub at around 1.15am local time, just over an hour into the new year, killing a police officer and a civilian as he entered before opening fire at random inside

Some witnesses spoke of multiple attackers, but officials have not confirmed this.

 

“A manhunt for the terrorist is underway. Police have launched operations. We hope the attacker will be captured soon,” he told reporters.

Turkey has imposed a media blackout after the attack, although the restriction doesn’t extend to officials, BBC reported.

Australian embassy officials are working with Turkish authorities to determine if any Australians are victims of the nightclub attack.

 

 

The nightclub, one of Istanbul’s most iconic that is popular with locals and foreigners alike, overlooks the Bosphorus Strait separating Europe and Asia in the city’s cosmopolitan Ortakoy district.

Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin said the attacker had used a “long-range weapon” to “brutally and savagely” fire on people, apparently referring to some sort of assault rifle.

“One person first kills the police officer outside, and then a civilian,” the governor said. “Inside he rained bullets brutally, mercilessly over innocent people who were there just to celebrate the new year and have fun.”

 

People talk to medics in an ambulance near the scene of an attack in Istanbul. Photo: APThe Hurriyet newspaper cited witnesses as saying there were multiple attackers and that they shouted in Arabic.

 

Her husband Lutfu Uyanik was wounded in the attack.

 

 

 

Her husband was not in serious condition despite his wounds.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the shooting. The mass killing at the nightclub was at least the fourth major attack in Turkey in less than a month, raising questions about the ability of the government, a NATO member and critical regional ally of the United States, to counter an array of threats stemming from the war across Turkey’s border in Syria, as well as an escalating conflict with Kurdish militants inside Turkey.

 

An image, reportedly of one of the gunmen involved in the attack at the Istanbul nightclub.Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country would fight to the end against all forms of attack by terror groups and their backers.

“As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political and social attacks,” Erdogan said in a written statement.

“They are trying to create chaos, demoralise our people, and destabilise our country with abominable attacks which target civilians … We will retain our cool-headedness as a nation, standing more closely together, and we will never give ground to such dirty games,” he said.

On the European side of the country’s capital, about 12km from Istanbul, the suburb of Ortakoy is an international travel destination known for its food stalls and vibrant night life. The area is a mix of stone, brick and wooden buildings along pedestrian lanes.

Mehmet Kocarslan, the club’s owner, told the Hurriyet.com.tr news site that there had been increased security at the club for the past 10 days after US intelligence officials shared information about the planned attack. He said the attackers used Kalashnikov rifles.

Television footage showed dozens of ambulances rushing to the scene, and people fleeing, some walking with difficulty arm in arm.

Footage from the scene showed at least six ambulances with flashing lights and civilians being escorted out. NTV said police had cordoned off the area and an operation to capture the assailant was ongoing.

An AP photographer says police cordoned off the area about three kilometres away from the nightclub and reported multiple ambulances passing by.

President Barack Obama expressed condolences on Saturday over the attack and directed his team to offer US help to Turkish authorities, the White House said.

“This afternoon the President was briefed by his national security team on the attack in Istanbul,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement.

“The President expressed condolences for the innocent lives lost, directed his team to offer appropriate assistance to the Turkish authorities, as necessary, and keep him updated as warranted.”

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, responded on Twitter, saying his thoughts were with Turkey after this “cowardly act of terrorism”.

“We stand shoulder to shoulder with our Turkish friends,” he added.

Security measures had been heightened in major Turkish cities, with police barring traffic leading up to key squares in Istanbul and the capital Ankara. In Istanbul, 17,000 police officers were put on duty, some camouflaged as Santa Claus and others as street vendors, state news agency Anadolu reported.

Ankara and Istanbul have been targeted by several attacks in 2016 carried out by the Islamic State group or Kurdish rebels, killing more than 180 people.

Turkey is still recovering from a failed coup attempt that began July 15 in which at least 265 people were killed.

Although the coup effort sputtered in a matter of hours, Mr Erdogan responded with a sweeping, months-long crackdown targeting alleged dissidents across Turkish society.

In addition to arresting thousands of military personnel suspected of involvement in the coup, hundreds of thousands of civil servants, educational staff and journalists were purged.

The coup and the assassination of the Russian Ambassador Andrey G. Karlov in Ankara on December 19 raised concerns that the country’s security establishment had grown ineffective.

The turmoil also raised doubts about how well Turkey would be able to participate in international counter-terrorism efforts, especially with regard to the Islamic State.

DPA/Reuters/AP/New York Times/Washington Post


abc.net.au

39 dead in New Year ‘terror attack’ on Istanbul nightclub

 Sun 1 Jan 2017, 9:15pm

A gunman shot his way into an Istanbul nightclub packed with New Year’s revellers early on Sunday, killing at least 39 people and wounding almost 70 others in what the provincial Governor described as a terrorist attack.

Key points:

  • Istanbul city governor condemned the “terrorist attack” on the popular Reina nightclub
  • Around 500-600 people were thought to be in the club when the attack happened
  • The attacker was believed to have entered the premises dressed as Santa Claus, local media reported

The assailant shot a police officer and a civilian as he entered the Reina nightclub before opening fire at random inside.

“A terrorist with a long-range weapon… brutally and savagely carried out this incident by firing bullets on innocent people who were there solely to celebrate the New Year and have fun,” Governor Vasip Sahin told reporters at the scene.

Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu said the attacker was still at large and 69 people were being treated in hospitals following the shooting.

Mr Soylu said of the victims identified so far, 16 were foreign nationals. He did not provide any information on their countries.

In a statement, President Tayyip Erdogan said that Turkey would fight to the end against all forms of attack by terror groups and their backers.

“As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political and social attacks,” he said.

“They are trying to create chaos, demoralise our people, and destabilise our country with abominable attacks which target civilians … we will retain our cool-headedness as a nation, standing more closely together, and we will never give ground to such dirty games,” he said.

‘I had to lift several bodies from on top of me’

Around 500-600 people were thought to have been in the club when the attack happened at around 1:15am local time, broadcaster CNN Turk said.

The club lies on the shore of the Bosphorus Strait in the Ortakoy district, and some jumped into the water to save themselves and were being rescued by police.

Police with riot gear and machine guns backed up by armoured vehicles blocked the area close to the Reina nightclub.

Witness Sinem Uyanik, whose husband Lutfu Uyanik was wounded in the attack, told AP she saw several bodies inside the nightclub.

“Before I could understand what was happening, my husband fell on top me,” she said outside Istanbul’s Sisli Hospital.

“I had to lift several bodies from on top of me before I could get out.”

The attacker was believed to have entered the nightclub dressed as Santa Claus, private NTV television reported earlier.

Broadcaster CNN Turk initially said the attacker was thought still to be inside the building and that police special forces were preparing to raid it. NTV said the attacker’s whereabouts were unclear.

Dozens of ambulances and police vehicles were dispatched to the club in Ortakoy, a cosmopolitan neighbourhood nestled under one of three bridges crossing the Bosphorus, and home to clubs, restaurants and art galleries.

DFAT determining if any Australians involved

The Department of Foreign Affairs said the Australian embassy in Ankara was liaising with local authorities to determine if any Australians were caught up in the attack.

Reina is one of Istanbul’s best-known nightclubs, popular with locals and tourists alike.

Security measures had been heightened in major Turkish cities, with police barring traffic leading up to key squares in Istanbul and the capital Ankara. In Istanbul, 17,000 police officers were put on duty, some camouflaged as Santa Claus and others as street vendors, Anadolu reported.

Ankara and Istanbul have been targeted by several attacks in 2016 carried out by the Islamic State (IS) group or Kurdish rebels, killing more than 180 people.

Turkey, part of the US-led coalition against IS, faces multiple security threats including spill-over from the war in neighbouring Syria.

It has seen repeated attacks and bombings blamed on IS as well as Kurdish militants in recent months.

US President Barack Obama “expressed condolences for the innocent lives lost”, and said assistance would be offered to Turkish authorities.

Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag vowed that his country would press ahead with its fight against violent groups.

“Turkey will continue its determined and effective combat to root out terror,” Mr Bozdag said on Twitter.

ABC/wires

Topics: terrorism, unrest-conflict-and-war, turkey

First posted about 11 hours agoSun 1 Jan 2017, 10:25am

Drug ring raids net historic $360m cocaine haul


abc.net.au

Drug ring raids net historic $360m cocaine haul

By Siobhan Fogarty

Updated 18 minutes ago

Thu 29 Dec 2016, 12:17pm

A former NRL player and a Bondi businessman have been linked to a drug ring after New South Wales Police recorded the biggest cocaine haul in Australia’s history.

Key points:

  • 1.1 tonnes of cocaine worth $360 million seized by AFP and NSW police
  • Two seizures of cocaine make the biggest haul of the drug in Australian history
  • 15 men arrested including a former NRL player and a Bondi businessman

The joint strike force between Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police drug squad arrested 15 men and seized about $360 million worth of cocaine.

Former Roosters player John Tobin is one of the accused smugglers, along with Bondi businessman Darren Mohr.

The criminal syndicate was allegedly using a trawler based at the Sydney Fish Market to meet a “mother ship” from South America to bring drugs into the country.

About 500 kilograms of the drug was seized on Christmas Day at Brooklyn on the central coast of New South Wales.

Police allege 600 kilograms was seized in Tahiti and 32 kilograms of heroin was found in Fiji with both loads destined for the market in Australia.

Acting Assistant Commissioner, Chris Sheehan, said the police operation had been running for almost three years and escalated with the arrests over the Christmas period.

“The criminal syndicate we have dismantled over the last few days was a robust, resilient and determined syndicate,” he said.

“This is the largest cocaine seizure we have had in Australia.

“It posed an ongoing and continued threat to the Australian community and without the work of our police, would still be in action today.”

Tip-off from community led to bust

Assistant Police Commissioner, Mark Jenkins said a member of the community gave them a tip-off two and a half years ago that led to the cocaine haul.

“As a result, over one tonne of drugs has been prevented from reaching the streets of New South Wales and harming the community,” he said.

“That small piece of information has resulted in 15 arrests and a large seizure of drugs.”

Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.

Video: Police seized 500kg worth of cocaine in NSW (ABC News)

Officers allege the group of men, aged from 29 to 63, are involved in the Australian criminal syndicate responsible for the attempted imports.

They have been charged with serious drug importation offences and eleven of the 15 men have appeared before Parramatta Local Court and were refused bail.

A 49-year-old man and a 63-year-old man are due to appear before Central Local Court today.

Two other men, a 33-year-old and 39-year-old are also expected to front Nowra Local Court today after they were arrested at Ulladulla yesterday.

Police said they were confident all alleged members of the criminal syndicate were in custody.

Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.

Video: Arrests made after $360m worth of cocaine seized (ABC News)

Topics: crime, law-crime-and-justice, drug-offences, nsw

First posted about 4 hours agoThu 29 Dec 2016, 7:48am


smh.com.au

Police smash cocaine ring at Sydney Fish Market in Christmas Day raid

By Rachel Olding, Latika Bourke, Rachel Browne

A former rugby league first grade player, a Bondi entrepreneur and a several fishermen are among 15 men arrested on Christmas Day in a multimillion-dollar cocaine ring bust.

Police will allege the men were imported more than a tonne of cocaine via the iconic Sydney Fish Market and other NSW ports.

Australian Federal Police Acting Assistant Commissioner Chris Sheehan described the alleged syndicate as “robust, resilient and determined”.

He told a packed Sydney press conference that the 15 arrested men were “determined to exploit some of the most vulnerable members of the community.”

The seizure of 500kg of cocaine in Sydney, 600kg of the drug in Tahiti and 32kg of heroin in Fiji make it the largest drug bust of its kind in Australia.

NSW Police State Crime Commander Mark Jenkins said all the drugs originated in South America before being transferred across the South Pacific by ship.

Several of the men were arrested on Christmas Day as they docked a shipping vessel named Dalrymple at the Sydney Fish Markets.

It’s alleged the boat was used to ferry drugs between NSW ports and a larger ship stationed out at sea that held drugs smuggled from Chile.

Operation Okesi, comprising officers from NSW Police, Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force, started over two-and-a-half-years after police received a “thread” of information.

Since then, five alleged importations by the sophisticated syndicate have been thwarted.

It includes the seizure of 32 kilograms of heroin by authorities in Fiji in December 2014 and the seizure of 606 kilograms of cocaine by authorities in Tahiti in March.

Officers then observed the Dalrymple depart the Sydney Fish Markets on December 3 and travel to the Central Coast. The vessel was monitored by Maritime Border Command and the NSW Police’s Marine Area Command.

On Christmas night, officers watched the crew launch a small one-man dinghy which allegedly travelled to Parlsey Bay at Brooklyn on the NSW Central Coast and met with two other men.

All three were arrested and about 500 kilograms of cocaine was seized from the dinghy.

Several other men were arrested on board the Dalrymple vessel as it docked at Sydney Fish Market on Christmas night.

A police source told Fairfax Media the syndicate thought they could take advantage of the festive season by striking on Christmas Day.

Authorities valued the total amount of cocaine seized at $360 million.

Among the men arrested is former Eastern Suburbs Roosters player John Roland Boyd Tobin, who played 125 matches as lock forward in the 1980s.

Bondi entrepreneur Darren John Mohr was also arrested. He lists his occupation as the owner Martini Motors and is also the former owner of the Bondi Rescue HQ cafe.

His Instagram profile shows a love of Harley Davidson motorbikes, Rolls Royce cars and being shirtless.

Police also arrested Reuben John Dawe, who lists his occupation as a maritime worker and commercial fisherman Joseph Pirrello, 63.

Other man arrested in the sting include Simon Peter Spero, 56, Graham Toa Toa, 42, Stuart Ayrton, 54, Jonathan Cooper, 29, Richard Lipton, 37, Frank D’Agostino, 54, and Benjamin Sara, 31.

They were all refused bail in Parramatta Bail Court on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Two other men, extradited from Tasmania and Queensland, will appear in Parramatta Bail Court on Thursday as well as two men arrested in the Nowra area.

Footage released by police show multiple men being arrested in the dark from on-board the Dalrymple fishing vessel.

One of the men shown with his hands tied behind his back is wearing only a pair of boxer shorts covered in cartoon pictures of crocodiles.

“This operation has been running for more than two-and-a-half years and culminated over the Christmas period,” a police statement reads.

The men were aged between 29 and 63 years old.  Police are due to address the media at 11am on Thursday.

Eddie Obeid: The rise, reign and fall of NSW’s most notorious political powerbroker


Update 1.28pm 15/12/16

‘Bail is refused’

“I direct Mr Obeid be taken down [into the cells],” Justice Beech-Jones says.

After loosening his tie and handing his watch to his lawyers, Obeid was led from the dock in court five in the historic Darlinghurst Supreme Court by corrective services officers.

Justice Beech-Jones says Obeid’s lawyers have not established “exceptional circumstances” exist to warrant a grant of bail pending his appeal against conviction and sentence.

“I do not accept Mr Obeid’s appeal rises any higher than being reasonably arguable,” he says of the merits of the foreshadowed appeal.


Eddie Obeid to be stripped of parliamentary pension as Baird government reacts to his sentencing

  • Sean Nicholls

Former Labor minister Eddie Obeid is set to be stripped of his annual $120,000 parliamentary pension following his sentencing for wilful misconduct in public office.

On Thursday, Obeid was sentenced to a maximum 5 years in jail with a non parole period of three years.

Shortly afterwards, Premier Mike Baird announced MPs convicted of a serious offence during their time in office will lose their parliamentary pension, even if they quit before charges are laid.

The announcement means Obeid is set to be stripped of his lifetime annual pension worth more than $120,000 a year.

Presently MPs convicted of a serious offence – punishable by at least five years imprisonment – can keep their pensions if they are not charged while in office.

“The crimes of Eddie Obeid and his cronies are the most serious instance of official corruption we have seen in our lifetimes,” Mr Baird said.

“Regardless of political affiliation, any MP who commits a serious offence while in office should face the consequences, and should not be shielded simply because they resign before being charged.

“We will work cooperatively with the Opposition and cross-bench MPs over the summer recess to bring forward amendments that repair this glaring anomaly, and we will make sure they capture Obeid and any others who find themselves in his situation.”

The change will require an amendment to legislation to be put to parliament early next year.

The Baird government has also indicated it will claw back the estimated $280,000 legal assistance he was given for this particular ICAC inquiry.

MORE TO COME

Click here to read full sentencing judgement


Eddie Obeid sentenced for Circular Quay corruption

Michaela Whitbourn

‘Sanctity of jury verdict’

Justice Beech-Jones says the “public interest upholding the sanctity of the jury’s verdict” is a factor weighing against granting bail.

The corrupt former Labor kingpin’s lawyers have also suggested he should be granted bail because he is facing a committal hearing on other corruption charges next year.

The Supreme Court judge says it can be accepted it will be harder for Obeid to prepare for that case while in jail.

The judge decides

Justice Robert Beech-Jones is now delivering his decision on whether Obeid should be granted bail. It’s a busy morning for the Supreme Court judge.

Justice Robert Beech-Jones delivers his decision in the Eddie Obeid sentencing.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones delivers his decision in the Eddie Obeid sentencing.  

The final, final point

It feels like Obeid’s barrister is holding out the promise of a “final” point but there is always another one to be made.

Guy Reynolds, SC, says Obeid will appeal not only his conviction but his sentence.

And yes, he still wants “a release order or bail” pending that appeal. If he doesn’t get it from Justice Beech-Jones he is likely to ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to decide on that point too.

‘Unreasonable verdict’

Obeid’s barrister Guy Reynolds, SC, says he is moving onto his “final” point.

Not only does Reynolds say the jury was misdirected by Justice Beech-Jones, he says the jury’s verdict was “unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence”.

It’s good to cover all one’s bases.

Reynolds says he is “grateful” to the court for allowing him to set out the grounds of appeal, as “aggravating” as it may be.

He reiterates he is seeking bail for his 73-year-old client pending an appeal.

Eddie Obeid outside court this morning.
Eddie Obeid outside court this morning. Photo: Daniel Munoz

Still here

Oh yes, we’re still here in court. Obeid’s barrister Guy Reynolds, SC, is fleshing out his submission there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Obeid has no intention of going to jail and his legal team wants Justice Beech-Jones to grant bail today.

Get comfortable. This could be a while.

Back to top

Obeid to be stripped of pension

The Herald‘s state political editor Sean Nicholls has the exclusive: the Baird government will strip Obeid of his annual $120,000 parliamentary pension following his jail sentence for misconduct in public office.

Read the full story here.

Someone's having a good day, and it ain't Eddie.
Someone’s having a good day, and it ain’t Eddie. Photo: James Alcock

No love lost

Former Labor premier Kristina Keneally is out of the blocks early to offer her views on Obeid’s jail sentence. She’s not mincing her words.

It ain’t over

Usually when a person is sent to prison, they are taken away from the courtroom almost immediately by corrective services.

Not so in the Obeid case. His lawyer, Guy Reynolds, SC, is in full flight about the alleged miscarriage of justice suffered by his client. He wants bail.

An impassive Obeid remains in the dock as Reynolds and Justice Beech-Jones engage in a robust discussion about the latter’s summing up to the jury.

What next

An appeal is already in the offing but for the time being Obeid is going to jail for a maximum of five years, with no possibility of release for three years.

What next? Glad you asked. Obeid and his entrepreneurial middle son, Moses, have been charged over a separate deal exposed at ICAC, relating to the very fortuitous creation of a coal mining tenement over their rural property in the Bylong Valley near Mudgee.

The deal netted the Obeid family $30 million, ICAC heard.The men will face a three-week committal hearing starting on May 29 to test the strength of the prosecution’s case and determine if they should stand trial.

Moses Obeid outside the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Moses Obeid outside the Supreme Court earlier this year. Photo: Daniel Munoz

Appeal, anyone?

Obeid’s barrister, Guy Reynolds, SC, has leapt to his feet and, as foreshadowed, is already flagging an appeal.

He says there has been a “miscarriage of justice” and they will need to trot off to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

“The prospects of Mr Obeid succeeding … on appeal are extremely high,” Reynolds says.

Back to top

Jail only appropriate penalty

Obeid will go to jail, Justice Beech-Jones says.

“Given the nature of the offending and notwithstanding Mr Obeid’s personal circumstances, I am satisfied that, having considered all possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate,” he says.

“Mr Obeid, will you please stand up.”

Five years

Justice Beech-Jones has sentenced Obeid to a maximum of 5 years in jail, with a three-year non parole period.

‘Not an opinion poll’

This is it. “Conclusion,” Justice Beech-Jones says clearly.

He says sentencing is not conducted via “opinion polls”.

“If Mr Obeid had not willfully abused his position as a parliamentarian, then his life and career would be a testament to the values of hard work, family and public service. Instead, his time in public life has produced a very different legacy.”

Life expectancy

And we are inching closer. Justice Beech-Jones says a jail sentence should not be reduced because it would consume “most of an offender’s remaining life expectancy”.

Medical conditions

The court hears Obeid suffers from a litany of medical conditions. He had a stroke earlier this year, has had type two diabetes “for years”, has high blood pressure and colonic polyps.

He also tripped on a coffee table earlier this year and was taken to hospital.

However, the conditions are “stable and controlled”, according to medical evidence.

But expert evidence tendered by Obeid’s legal team says it is “unlikely that … Obeid would receive appropriate medical treatment in custody if he was incarcerated”.

Justice Beech-Jones says he accepts Obeid would receive “a superior level of care in the community” but he is satisfied “he would receive an adequate level of care” in jail.

Eddie Obeid outside court this morning.
Eddie Obeid outside court this morning. Photo: Daniel Munoz

Back to top

All in the family

Justice Beech-Jones says the evidence suggests the Obeid family is “exceptionally close” and would be hit hard by the jailing of the patriarch.

But he notes it was Obeid’s decision to prioritise the interest of his family above his duty to the public that led to his offending.

A parliamentarian cannot use their position to “afford generosity” to their family or associates, he says.

‘Mitigating factor’

Obeid enlisted 55 character witnesses in his fight to avoid jail. Justice Beech-Jones says they are evidence of “prior good character”, which is a “mitigating factor” in sentencing.

However, he says in cases of corruption the “need for deterrence is particularly strong” and the references will be “afforded less weight”.

‘Deliberate breach of trust’

Justice Beech-Jones is getting closer to delivering those final words: to jail or not to jail.

He says the essence of the offence of misconduct in public office is a “deliberate breach of trust”.

The seniority of the public official is relevant, along with the nature of the breach.

The Supreme Court judge is surveying relevant cases, and says they demonstrate the “onerous duty” imposed upon parliamentarians and ministers.

Eddie Obeid outside court this morning.
Eddie Obeid outside court this morning. Photo: Daniel Munoz

The penalty

Now we’re getting down to it. Justice Beech-Jones is setting out the principles for sentencing Eddie Obeid.

In NSW the offence of misconduct in public office is not codified in an act of Parliament – it is simply part of the common law (law made by judges).

That means the maximum penalty has not been set out in legislation and is technically “at large”, meaning life.

But in other states, where the offence has been codified, the maximum penalty is about seven years. This is relevant but the court is not “limited” by that, Justice Beech-Jones says.

He says there is “no difference in substance” between a politician receiving a bribe to advance someone else’s interest and using their position to line their own pockets.

‘Makes no difference’

It makes no difference to Obeid’s criminality whether he was acting to advance his own financial interests or those of his family, Justice Beech-Jones said


Eddie Obeid: The rise, reign and recession of NSW’s most notorious political powerbroker

Analysis

12.20pm 15/12/2016

The sentencing of former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid is a day of reckoning for a man who once wielded his influence to build and destroy the careers of premiers and MPs in New South Wales.

Key points:

  • Eddie Obeid was renowned as a fearsome Labor kingmaker
  • His business and political empires became entwined
  • An ICAC finding of corruption lead to his prosecution

Obeid has been sentenced to five years’ jail, with a minimum of three years, for misconduct in a public office in relation to his family’s secret business dealings at Circular Quay.

Edward Moses Obeid was born in a village in northern Lebanon in 1943, and after moving to Australia as a child, worked as a cab driver and at local Arabic-language newspaper El Telegraph.

Within a few years he was running that newspaper, and was recruited by Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson to join the party in 1972.

ABC investigative journalist Marion Wilkinson’s book The Fixer describes how Obeid was soon providing invaluable advice to Richardson on how to politically organise ethnic communities.

It was Mr Richardson who gave Obeid the necessary backing to see him elected to the NSW Upper House in 1991, and he rose through the ranks to become the minister for fisheries and mineral resources from 1999 to 2003.

But it was his creation and control of the so-called Terrigals sub-faction of the Labor Right that would go on to dominate NSW Labor for the better part of two decades.

One king to rule them all

The sub-faction was formed, with Obeid its undisputed king, at a now infamous meeting at his beach house in Terrigal in 1992.

It went on to use its numbers relentlessly to fundraise, control pre-selections, guide policy and elevate chosen MPs to the frontbench.

At the height of its powers, the Terrigals sub-faction was instrumental in installing and removing a series of premiers — namely Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally.

Mr Iemma has said his premiership became “untenable” because he could not convince the Terrigals to approve his preferred ministerial reshuffle.

Mr Rees was rolled after standing up to the sub-faction by sacking Ian Macdonald and Joe Tripodi from the ministry.

Just before he was knifed, Mr Rees famously said: “should I not be Premier by the end of the day, let there be no doubt in the community’s mind, no doubt, that any challenger will be a puppet of Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi.”

How the empire unravelled

But Obeid’s influence was broader than the parliamentary caucus.

His diary entries from 2007 to 2009, tendered to Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) hearings, show a revolving door of developers, union bosses and business figures queuing up to seek appointments with him.

With a string of business and property interests in both Australia and Lebanon, Obeid was already wealthy when he entered Parliament and he continued to build both his financial and political empires while an MP.

And it was the mixing of his political and business ties which eventually led to him being convicted on June 28 this year of misconduct in a public office.

Obeid was found to have lobbied the then-deputy chief executive of the State Maritime Authority, Steve Dunn, over Circular Quay leases — without revealing that his family secretly owned a series of harbourside cafes in the Quay.

The Crown said Obeid knew Mr Dunn from when he had been fisheries minister, and argued that he misused his position as an Upper House MP to “dupe” Mr Dunn into believing he was acting on behalf of constituents.

The court found he was in fact trying to stop a competitive tender process for the leases to financially benefit his own family.

Prosecution not to be scoffed at

The prosecution stemmed from a corrupt conduct finding by the ICAC.

In his findings in the ICAC inquiry into the Circular Quay leases, assistant commissioner Anthony Whealy described the former MP’s actions as demonstrating “the moral vacuum at the core of his political being”.

When the ICAC first handed down its finding, Obeid scoffed that he believed there was “less than a one per cent chance” that he would be prosecuted as a result.

Even when charged, he still said he had “no concerns whatsoever” and was “very confident” he would not be convicted because he was innocent.

The court found otherwise.

Labor has done its best to exorcise itself of Obeid, ending his influence and calling for the courts to throw the full force of the law at him.

But no matter how hard it may try, Obeid’s fingerprints will forever remain all over a chapter of its political history in NSW.

R v Obeid Judgement Dec 15 2016


austlii.edu.au

R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815 (15 December 2016)

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of New South Wales >> 2016 >> [2016] NSWSC 1815 Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help


Last Updated: 15 December 2016

Supreme Court

New South Wales

JUDGMENT

  1. HIS HONOUR: In Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth,[1] Dixon J warned that democratic “[f]orms of government may need protection from dangers likely to arise from within the institutions to be protected”.[2] This case provides an illustration of such a danger.
  2. On 6 June 2016 the offender, Edward Moses Obeid, was arraigned in this Court on an indictment that charged him with one count of the common law offence of wilful misconduct in public office. He pleaded not guilty. A jury was empanelled and the trial proceeded.
  3. On Tuesday 28 June 2016 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. I recorded a conviction. The proceedings were adjourned until 12 August 2016 for submissions on sentence. The sentence proceedings were later adjourned to 6 October 2016 on Mr Obeid’s application due to his ill health. They were further adjourned to 1 December 2016 on the application of the Crown.
  4. In DPP v Marks [2005] VSCA 277 at [35], Nettle JA (as his Honour then was) identified the object of the offence of wilful misconduct in public office as ensuring a public official does not “abuse intentionally the trust reposed in him” or her. In this case, the essence of the criminality alleged against Mr Obeid was that he intentionally abused the public trust reposed in him as a Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales by using his position to make representations to a senior officer of the Maritime Authority of NSW, Mr Stephen Dunn, to advance the financial interests of himself or at least his family
  5. Now that Mr Obeid has been convicted, the Crown contends that no sentence other than full time imprisonment should be imposed. On behalf of Mr Obeid it is contended that the Court can and should impose a sentence that falls short of that sanction, especially when regard is had to his personal circumstances including his age, ill health and prior good conduct.
  6. To address these submissions and determine the appropriate sentence it is first necessary to set out the background to the commission of the offence by Mr Obeid, describe the conduct he engaged in, determine what the jury necessarily found by its verdict, identify the relevant principles that apply to the sentencing exercise and outline the subjective case put forward on Mr Obeid’s behalf.

Background

  1. To the extent that the following description of the background to the offence refers to established facts, they were either agreed at the trial or at least not in issue.
  2. Mr Obeid was elected to the Legislative Council in 1991.[3] He retired from Parliament in 2011.[4] From April 1999 to April 2003 he was the Minister for Fisheries.[5]
  3. In the period leading up to the Sydney Olympics, the public body responsible for wharves 1 to 5 at Circular Quay, being the Waterways Authority, entered into new leases for the businesses situated on those wharves. The term of each lease was approximately five years and they were all due to expire on or about 31 August 2005. They did not include options for renewal.[6]
  4. During 2005, the Waterways Authority was renamed the “NSW Maritime Authority” (the “Maritime Authority”).[7] At all relevant times, Ministerial responsibility for the Waterways Authority, and then the Maritime Authority, rested with the Minister for Ports and Waterways. Until August 2005, Michael Costa was the responsible Minister. From August 2005 to February 2006, Eric Roozendaal was the Minister. From February 2006 until November 2009, Joseph Tripodi was the Minister for Ports and Waterways.[8]
  5. In or about late 2002, Circular Quay Restaurants Pty Ltd (“CQR”) purchased two businesses operating under leases at the Circular Quay wharves, namely the Café Sorrentino on Wharf 4 and the Quay Eatery on Wharf 5, for $1 million each.[9] It also purchased another business in the vicinity of the wharves known as the Arc Cafe[10] for $400,000.00,[11] however it need not be mentioned further.
  6. CQR took assignments of the leases for Café Sorrentino and Quay Eatery on the same terms and conditions as the existing tenants, including the expiry date in August 2005.[12] Mr Obeid’s brotherinlaw, Mr John Abood, was the sole Director and shareholder of CQR. It was an agreed fact that “via a series of trusts 90% of the interest in the business[es] flowed to the Obeid Family Trust No. 2”.[13] This was a discretionary trust, the potential beneficiaries of which were members of the Obeid family, including Mr Obeid and his wife, Judith.[14] Further, there was evidence at the trial that $1.398 million of the funds for the purchase of the businesses came from a mortgage of the home that Mr Obeid and his wife resided in and which his wife owned. A ledger entry from the family business records that, six days prior to the purchase of the businesses, $3.4 million was received from that mortgage of which $1.398 million was distributed to CQR and just over $1.557 million was distributed to, or at least on behalf of, Mr Obeid.[15]
  7. Although Mr Abood was the Director and shareholder of CQR, the acquisition of the businesses and its financing was arranged by Mr Obeid’s sons, principally Damien Obeid.[16] Mr Abood managed the businesses on a daytoday basis.[17] For that he was paid a salary and provided with a motor vehicle.[18] Damien Obeid was responsible for the collection of the cash takings of the businesses and payment of its invoices.[19] Damien Obeid arranged for the cash takings to be delivered to Sam Achie, the financial controller, and Paul Maroon, a bookkeeper. They both worked at the offices of Obeid Corporation at Birkenhead Point.[20]
  8. In his evidence, Damien Obeid denied that from the time his father entered Parliament he played any role in the family businesses or that he discussed the family businesses with his father.[21] He specifically denied discussing with his father “anything at all about how the businesses [at Circular Quay] were going, what the lease problems were, or anything like that”.[22] However, Damien Obeid understood that his father was aware that he and his brothers had invested in the businesses at Circular Quay.[23]
  9. Damien Obeid said that, shortly after the businesses were acquired, he requested that Paul Maroon set aside approximately $1000 to $1200 per week from the cash takings of CQR for delivery to Judith Obeid.[24] Damien Obeid stated that this was merely a continuation of an arrangement for the provision of cash to her from one family business or another which was always accounted for as a payment by Obeid Corporation.[25]
  10. There was also evidence capable of suggesting that Mr Obeid received his own cash payments from CQR’s takings from sometime in 2007. Tendered at the trial were a series of spreadsheets prepared by Mr Maroon.[26] The spreadsheets each had a file name referable to a particular date or week in the period August 2007 to October 2011. The spreadsheets included entries referable to the distribution of CQR’s cash takings. The entries in the spreadsheets juxtaposed amounts of cash with references to Judith Obeid, Mr Obeid or both of them. On their face, those spreadsheets suggested that regular cash payments were made to Mr Obeid over and above the amounts paid to Judith Obeid. In addition, there were other electronic documents prepared by Mr Maroon which contained references to payments to “mum and dad”[27] or “EO and JO”.[28]
  11. Mr Maroon’s oral evidence had its difficulties in that his memory has been significantly affected by medication he takes for epilepsy.[29] As a consequence, the jury was instructed that it should exercise caution in determining whether to accept his evidence and attach weight to it.[30] Mr Maroon said that the entries in the spreadsheets reflected instructions he received that were recorded on approximately the same day they were given to him, “usually” by Damien Obeid.[31] He said the spreadsheet entries recorded instructions to prepare envelopes with an amount of cash in them which he provided to Damien Obeid or one of his brothers.[32] Sometimes the envelope was marked up to reflect the instruction.[33] However, Mr Maroon agreed that he did not remember the circumstances of any particular entry,[34] that he never saw what happened to the envelopes of cash he gave to Damien Obeid,[35] and that he never saw Mr Obeid Senior receive any cash from CQR’s businesses.[36] Mr Maroon accepted that it was “possible” that the references to “mum and dad” in his spreadsheets could have been a reference “to the household expenses of the Obeid family”.[37]
  12. Mr Damien Obeid repeatedly denied asking Mr Maroon to set aside money for his father out of CQR’s takings or ever instructing Mr Maroon to write “Dad” on any envelope or that ever he provided any money to his father.[38] He stated that, while he and his family were living with his parents from 2006 to the “end of 2008 or perhaps even early 2009”,[39] there was an increase in the amount of cash payments of “up to $2000” per week.[40] This appears to roughly correspond with the total of the amounts referred to in the spreadsheets listed against Mr Obeid and his wife in that period.
  13. For each of the lessees of the businesses at the wharves, the insecurity of their tenure was a cause of considerable concern. This was particularly the case for CQR in that, if the leases were not renewed, then it was likely that the funds outlayed to purchase the businesses would not be recovered.
  14. In August 2004, five representatives of the lessees at the wharves wrote to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (“SHFA”) which was managing the properties for the Maritime Authority, expressing their concern about the security of their tenure and seeking a response to their request to renew their leases.[41] Mr Abood was one of the signatories to the letter. On 2 September 2004, SHFA responded stating that all lease agreements would be offered for competitive tender upon their expiry and that the tendering process would commence “early in the new year.”[42]
  15. Mr Abood said that around this time he had meetings with other tenants about the issue. Damien Obeid recommended they speak to his cousin, Dennis Jabour, who had experience in property management. Mr Jabour in turn suggested they retain Mr Paul Scanlan, a professional negotiator with legal qualifications and experience in retail tenancies. Ultimately, Mr Scanlan was retained to act on behalf of three separate tenants, including CQR.[43] Mr Scanlan was instructed to lobby the Maritime Authority on their behalf[44] in order to achieve either a renewal of their leases or at least agreement to direct negotiations over lease renewals.[45]
  16. From late 2004 to early 2008, Mr Scanlan did as he was instructed. He wrote a number of letters on behalf of the lessees to SHFA and the Maritime Authority. He made numerous telephone calls and attended many meetings with Maritime Authority staff. In July 2006 he secured a meeting with Minister Tripodi. Throughout this time Mr Scanlan emphasised the unfairness to the lessees in requiring them to compete in an open tender and that doing so was detrimental for the Maritime Authority in that it meant that the tenants were reluctant to invest in the upkeep of their premises.
  17. Despite his efforts, until the middle of 2007 Mr Scanlan was unsuccessful in obtaining any change in the Maritime Authority’s position. However, even though by early 2005 preparations for an open tender process were well advanced, the Maritime Authority did not proceed to competitive tender for the leases. Instead the leases were extended for six months from August 2005 and thereafter they became monthtomonth tenancies.[46] A ten per cent increase in rent was applied during the holding over period.[47]
  18. The former Chief Executive Officer of the Maritime Authority, Christopher Oxenbould, explained that this delay was the result of internal government disagreements concerning the Maritime Authority’s commercial leasing policy (the “CLP”) and its approach to the Circular Quay precinct. There were differing views within the Maritime Authority and between the differing Ministers from time to time as to whether the CLP should provide that, upon the expiry of a lease of Maritime Authority property, a new lease should be the subject of a market based tender on the one hand or existing tenants should be allowed the opportunity to first negotiate a renewed lease on the other. In relation to Circular Quay, Mr Oxenbould stated that within the Maritime Property division of the Maritime Authority there was a “very strong belief” that the process of renewal for the Circular Quay leases was a special case compared with those addressed in the proposed CLP and should only be renewed by a process of competitive tender.[48]
  19. Mr Oxenbould stated that around mid-2007, the fate of the proposed CLP and the Circular Quay leases became linked.[49] It was around this time that Mr Obeid made the “representations” the subject of the charge against him which I will now describe.

The Representations

  1. Mr Patrick Low was appointed to a senior policy position within the Maritime Authority in November 2006.[50] He assumed responsibility for the finalisation of the CLP. In his evidence, Mr Low said that he did not draw any distinction between retail leases at Circular Quay and other retail leases of Maritime Authority property.[51] On 7 August 2007, Mr Low circulated Version 9 of the draft CLP.[52] It contemplated retail leases of Maritime Authority property being offered on a competitive basis, including on their expiry.[53]
  2. On 15 August 2007, Mr Stephen Dunn took up an appointment as Deputy Chief Executive of the Maritime Authority.[54] On 21 August 2007, he was appointed to the additional position of General Manager of the Maritime Property Division.[55] Mr Dunn was the Director General of Fisheries from late 1999 to 2004, which included the period when Mr Obeid was the Minister for Fisheries.[56] Mr Dunn said that he and Mr Obeid came to know each other well during this period but they did not socialise although Mr Dunn regarded Mr Obeid as a mentor.[57] After he ceased work at the Department of Fisheries, Mr Dunn worked overseas for two years. When he returned he and Mr Obeid met infrequently for coffee.[58] Mr Dunn said that, in the period immediately before he was appointed, Mr Obeid contacted him and that Mr Obeid either was or became aware that Mr Dunn was about to commence in a senior position with the Maritime Authority.[59]
  3. During the morning of 17 August 2007, Mr Obeid telephoned Mr Dunn. Mr Dunn returned his call. Mr Dunn said that to his recollection Mr Obeid said that “he was unhappy about the way the group of tenants at Circular Quay had been treated by the Maritime Authority” and asked Mr Dunn to “meet with a barrister that represented them, Mr Paul Scanlan”. Mr Dunn also recalled that Mr Obeid “made some very disparaging remarks” about the Maritime Authority and the way they treated the tenants.[60] He recalled that Mr Obeid said that the leaseholders at Circular Quay “were bullied by Maritime Authority staff and that they were not treated fairly in their dealing with Maritime Authority staff”.[61] Mr Dunn recalled that Mr Obeid was “agitated” and used “quite strong language” to convey his feelings about the “behaviour of the Maritime Property staff about the way they treated stakeholders”.[62] In cross examination, Mr Dunn agreed that Mr Obeid did not advocate any outcome other than him meeting with Mr Scanlan and did not expand upon the tenants’ grievances.[63]
  4. At no time during that or any other conversation did Mr Obeid indicate to Mr Dunn that he or his family had any direct or indirect financial interest in the Circular Quay leases.[64] Instead, Mr Dunn said that he knew Mr Obeid was a Member of the Legislative Council and believed “very much that [Mr Obeid] was calling on behalf of constituents”.[65]
  5. The telephone records indicate that there were five further telephone conversations between Mr Dunn and Mr Obeid after the call on 17 August 2007, being calls on 21 August 2007, 27 August 2007, the evening of 28 August 2007, 3 September 2007[66] and 11 September 2007.[67] Mr Dunn had no specific recollection of those conversations but he accepted that with the conversation on 21 August 2007 there was nothing to discuss other than the Circular Quay leases[68] and that with the telephone call on 28 August 2007 it was likely they had discussed Mr Dunn’s meeting with Mr Scanlan earlier that day.[69] He recalled that in the telephone calls on 5 and 11 September 2007, Mr Obeid was seeking “updates”.[70]
  6. As noted, on or about 28 August 2007, Mr Dunn met Mr Scanlan.[71] Mr Low said he also attended[72] but neither Mr Dunn nor Mr Scanlan could recall him being present at the meeting.[73] Around this time, Mr Dunn and Mr Low met to discuss Version 9 of the draft CLP. Mr Low recalled Mr Dunn directing that it be changed from requiring open tenders of leases to instead having a “benchmark of lease renewals on commercial terms”.[74] Mr Dunn did not accept that he directed such changes but instead said he was “encouraging Mr Low [that] this was a suitable policy response”.[75] Both recalled that Mr Low obtained the approval of the Minister and Mr Oxenbould for the changes.[76]
  7. On or about 4 September 2007, Version 10 of the draft CLP was produced.[77] This version now provided that retail leases would be “offered via direct negotiations” with existing tenants in the first instance.[78] On the same date Mr Dunn wrote to Mr Scanlan advising that the Maritime Authority was reviewing its lease policy and that no further increases in rent would be sought during the holdover period.[79]
  8. Two further versions of the draft CLP were produced but the approach to renewals of existing retail leases did not change from Version 10.[80] The final CLP was approved by cabinet on 26 November 2007.[81] Negotiations over a new lease commenced with Mr Scanlan on 29 November 2007.[82] A new lease for CQR’s businesses was signed in 2008. However, the businesses ultimately failed sometime around 2012[83] and the leases were terminated.

The Jury’s Verdict

  1. To properly characterise Mr Obeid’s offending, it is necessary to explain the elements of the offence of wilful misconduct in public office and the directions given to the jury in order to determine what the jury necessarily found in returning a guilty verdict. In addition, it is the sentencing judge’s function to make such further findings of fact as may be necessary for sentencing provided that they are consistent with the jury’s verdict. If any such findings are adverse to the offender, they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt but otherwise they are to be made on the balance of probabilities (see R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270 (“Olbrich”) at [27] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
  2. In Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309 at [133] to [142], Bathurst CJ, Beazley P and Leeming JA accepted the formulation of the five elements of the offence of wilful misconduct in public office enunciated in R v Quach [2010] VSCA 106; 201 A Crim R 522 (“Quach”) at [46]. In Mr Obeid’s case it was accepted that one of those elements, namely, that the relevant misconduct was undertaken “without reasonable excuse or justification”, did not arise as no evidence or submissions put forward were capable of raising any such excuse or justification that was not necessarily excluded by a finding that he wilfully misconducted himself.[84] Accordingly, the jury was instructed that it had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the remaining four elements stated in Quach adapted to the case against Mr Obeid,[85] being first that he was a public officer, second that in making representations to Mr Dunn Mr Obeid acted “in the course of or connected to his public office”, third that in so acting he wilfully misconducted himself and fourth that his conduct in making representations was misconduct that was serious and merited criminal punishment. I will deal with each element in turn.
  3. In relation to the first element, the jury was instructed that as a matter of law a Member of the Legislative Council is a public officer: Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309 at [119] to [123].[86]
  4. In relation to the second element, the jury was instructed that the functions and responsibilities of a Member of the Legislative Council include “scrutinising the actions of the executive government” and “communicat[ing] with the executive government about matters affecting the State by, for example, making representations, suggestions or even protesting to a Minister or departments about their policies and practices”[87] (see Horne v Barber [1920] HCA 33; 27 CLR 494 at 500 to 501 per Isaacs J; R v Boston [1923] HCA 59; 33 CLR 386; “Boston” at 402 to 403 per Isaacs and Rich JJ; R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380 at [105]). In this case, the nature and circumstances of the conversation between Mr Dunn and Mr Obeid and the absence of any disclosure by Mr Obeid that he or his family had any interest in the leases clearly suggested that, objectively considered, Mr Obeid’s conduct was undertaken in the course of or connected to his public office. The jury so concluded.
  5. In relation to the third element, namely, that Mr Obeid wilfully misconducted himself, the jury was instructed that it had to be satisfied of three matters beyond reasonable doubt, namely, that: Mr Obeid engaged in the conduct identified in the indictment, that such conduct was misconduct that is a breach of the duties and obligations attached to his office as a Member of the Legislative Council and that the misconduct was “wilful”.[88]
  6. The relevant conduct alleged against Mr Obeid in the indictment was that while he held office as a Member of the Legislative Council he made representations to Mr Dunn, “with the intention of securing an outcome from the … Maritime Authority favourable to [CQR] in respect of its tenancies of properties at Circular Quay, knowing at the time he made the representations that he had a commercial and/or beneficial and/or family and/or personal interest in the said tenancies which he did not disclose to Stephen Paul Dunn.”[89]
  7. The jury was instructed that this aspect of the indictment raised four matters of fact, each of which it had to be satisfied of beyond reasonable doubt, namely, that Mr Obeid had an interest in the tenancies, that he knew that such an interest existed, that he did not disclose any such interest to Mr Dunn and that he made representations to Mr Dunn with the “intention of securing an outcome” favourable to CQR.[90]
  8. In relation to Mr Obeid and his family’s interest in the tenancies I have already referred to the agreed fact that Mr Obeid and his family had an interest via the trust arrangement ([12]). I have also referred to the evidence concerning the mortgage of his residence that was owned by his wife which was used to finance part of the acquisition of the businesses ([12]), the evidence of weekly cash payments made to Mr Obeid’s wife ([15]) and the evidence of the further cash payments that the Crown contended were made to Mr Obeid directly ([16] to [18]). It follows from the jury’s verdict that it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Obeid had an “interest” of the kind referred to in the indictment. The indirect interest via a trust was agreed and the evidence of the mortgage and cash payments to Judith Obeid was undisputed. I consider it follows that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of those three matters. To the extent that there may be some uncertainty in this respect I record that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of those matters.
  9. However, it does not necessarily follow from its verdict that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Obeid personally received the cash payments described as payments to “EO” or “Dad” or the like in Mr Maroon’s spreadsheets. Given that Mr Maroon never stated that he provided them to Mr Obeid Senior personally, and his concession that the reference to “Mum or Dad” in his spreadsheet could have been a reference to payments to the household expenses of the Obeid family, I am not satisfied of that matter beyond reasonable doubt. However, it was not disputed that the payments described as being for “EO” or “Dad” or the like in Mr Maroon’s spreadsheets represented actual cash amounts that were delivered to Mr Obeid’s household and, if not given to him, then they were at least given to his wife Judith. Damien Obeid agreed that the amount of cash payments increased from around 2006. Accordingly, I consider it follows that the jury was satisfied of at least that fact. To the extent that there may be some uncertainty in this respect I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that fact.
  10. As for Mr Obeid’s knowledge of his and his family’s interest, it follows from the verdict that the jury was satisfied of that as well. In particular, it is overwhelmingly likely that Mr Obeid was aware of the substantial financial outlay his family made to purchase the businesses, especially when he received part of the proceeds of the same mortgage that was used to finance the purchase (see [12]). It is also overwhelmingly likely that Mr Obeid was aware of which business was being used to provide cash to his household. Further, while Damien Obeid gave evidence that he did not discuss the family’s businesses with his father, I am satisfied the jury rejected that aspect of his evidence and was satisfied of the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. To the extent there may be any uncertainty in this respect, I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that matter. The exquisite timing of Mr Obeid’s telephone contact with Mr Dunn demonstrates that he was very familiar with the position of his family businesses and the threat they faced.
  11. In relation to the absence of disclosure by Mr Obeid to Mr Dunn of his interest in the tenancies, Mr Dunn’s uncontested evidence was that Mr Obeid made no such disclosure in any way (see [29]).91[91]t follows from its verdict that the jury was satisfied of that matter.
  12. In relation to that part of the indictment that alleged that Mr Obeid made representations to Mr Dunn with the “intention of securing an outcome” favourable to CQR I have already described Mr Dunn’s uncontested evidence of his discussions with Mr Obeid. The jury clearly accepted that evidence. At the trial, there was no real contest that Mr Obeid made “representations” to Mr Dunn. However, there was a contest about the content and effect of those representations and then in turn, Mr Obeid’s motives, intentions and state of mind in making them.
  13. At the trial it was contended on behalf of Mr Obeid that the request he made of Mr Dunn was relatively innocuous in that he did not urge any outcome on Mr Dunn and did not expand upon the tenants’ grievances. In contrast, in his final address, the Crown Prosecutor effectively submitted that Mr Obeid’s intervention was a careful and nuanced act designed to prime Mr Dunn to be receptive to Mr Scanlan’s arguments. The Crown submitted that Mr Obeid chose Mr Dunn because he was someone with whom he had an existing relationship and he knew was influential. The Crown submitted that Mr Obeid did more than simply ring Mr Dunn and ask him to meet Mr Scanlan. The Crown submitted that Mr Obeid conveyed to Mr Dunn in clear terms his strong disapproval with the way the Maritime Authority was treating the tenants at Circular Quay. The Crown submitted that by not mentioning his interest in the tenancies Mr Obeid duped Mr Dunn into believing that he was asking him to meet with Mr Scanlan on behalf of arm’s length constituents who had a genuine grievance with the Maritime Authority. I consider that it follows from the jury’s verdict that the jury accepted what the Crown submitted was Mr Obeid’s motives and intentions in contacting Mr Dunn. To the extent that there may be some uncertainty in this respect I am satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt.
  14. At this point, it is important to note a specific direction given to the jury about this part of the indictment; ie that part that refers to Mr Obeid having an “intention of securing an outcome” favourable to CQR. At the trial, Mr Tripodi, gave evidence that he had served on a parliamentary committee with Mr Obeid from 1996 to 1998.[92] Mr Tripodi said that he recalled that Mr Obeid had instanced the Circular Quay lessees as examples of government tenants who had been mistreated and referred to other government departments “where they did have a right of renewal and he felt that was good policy”.[93] There was also an agreed fact that Mr Obeid and Mr Tripodi had discussions on that topic after Mr Tripodi became Minister for Ports and Waterways.[94]
  15. Thus, on behalf of Mr Obeid it was submitted to the jury that he had a long held view about unfair government treatment of tenants, including those at Circular Quay. It was also submitted that that matter, and the supposedly innocuous nature of his intervention, negated any suggestion that Mr Obeid intervened to promote his or his family’s financial interests and instead suggested he intervened because he believed the Maritime Authority was mistreating the Circular Quay tenants.[95] A submission to similar effect was made on behalf of Mr Obeid at the sentencing hearing.[96]
  16. This aspect of Mr Obeid’s case raised a possibility that the jury might conclude that, or be left with a doubt about whether, Mr Obeid made representations to Mr Dunn having both an intention to secure a favourable outcome for CQR and a belief that it was part of his duty to his constituents to point out unfair treatment by the Maritime Authority. Over the objection of the Crown,[97] I directed the jury that it had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct of Mr Obeid “in making the representations to Mr Dunn was undertaken with the intention of benefitting [CQR], that is for the purpose of promoting Mr Obeid’s pecuniary interests or those of his family or those close to him and that it was not undertaken because he in any way genuinely believed it was in the public interest or the interests of the electorate or even part of the electorate”.[98] I directed the jury that if it were not so satisfied then Mr Obeid had to be acquitted.[99]
  17. It follows from its verdict that the jury rejected the reasonable possibility that Mr Obeid was even partly motivated to speak to Mr Dunn by a genuine belief that doing so was in the public interest, the interests of the electorate or even the interests of part of the electorate. Instead, the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Obeid was solely motivated to benefit CQR and through it himself or his family. That aspect of the jury’s finding is especially significant to an assessment of Mr Obeid’s criminality.
  18. The next matter the jury was required to consider in relation to the third element was whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct that Mr Obeid engaged in was misconduct, that is, a breach of the duties and obligations of his office as a Member of the Legislative Council.[100] In that respect, the jury was instructed that parliamentarians are required to “act with fidelity and single mindedness for the welfare of the community” (Boston at 400 per Isaacs and Rich JJ)[101] and, in particular, that parliamentarians “must act only according to what they believe to be in the public interest and the interests of the electorate and must not use their position for the purpose of promoting their own pecuniary interests or those of their family or entities close to them”.[102] Clearly, the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that matter. It follows inexorably from the finding that Mr Obeid’s intervention was solely motivated to benefit CQR and through it himself or at least his family.
  19. The final aspect of the third element that the jury was satisfied of beyond reasonable doubt was that Mr Obeid’s misconduct was “wilful”. In this respect, the jury was instructed that, for the misconduct to be wilful, Mr Obeid must either have known that he was obliged not to use his position in that way, or he knew that it was possible that he was obliged not to use his position in that way but chose to do so anyway (R v Obeid (No 11) [2016] NSWSC 974).[103] The jury’s verdict does not resolve whether the misconduct was intentional or reckless. I record that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was intentional. As at 2007, Mr Obeid had been a Member of Parliament for 16 years and had previously been a Minister for three years. In those circumstances, I consider it inconceivable that he would not have known that he could not use his position as a parliamentarian to further his or his family’s financial interests.
  20. The fourth element of the offence was that Mr Obeid’s misconduct was serious and merited criminal punishment having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those objects.[104] In relation to this issue the jury was instructed that this crime is not established by an error or a mistake but instead the misconduct “must be worthy of condemnation and punishment.”[105] This element of the crime posed what is often described as a “classic jury question”, namely, a question the answer to which requires a normative assessment undertaken by reference to community standards. The fact that a jury determined that Mr Obeid’s conduct was worthy of condemnation and punishment does not foreclose the adoption of any particular sentencing option. However, as I will explain, it is a significant matter to consider in sentencing Mr Obeid (see [69]).
  21. Before concluding this analysis of the jury’s verdict, it is necessary to note four matters that arise out of the written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Obeid.
  22. First, it was not part of the Crown case that Mr Dunn acted improperly and there was no evidence adduced to suggest that he did. Mr Dunn’s undisputed evidence was that he would have met with Mr Scanlan irrespective of Mr Obeid’s intervention[106] and that the position he took in relation to the CLP was based on his own assessment.[107] In particular, he concluded that the level of stakeholder opposition to a competitive process was very strong[108] and that a change in the culture of the Maritime Property Division and its approach to Circular Quay tenants was necessary.[109]
  23. The written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Obeid contended that his representations to Mr Dunn ultimately had no effect on the decision reached by the Maritime Authority to offer new leases to CQR.[110] The Crown did not contend to the contrary and I accept that. However, that matter cannot be taken too far. There is no evidence from which it can be concluded that Mr Obeid was aware of Mr Dunn’s attitude to the Circular Quay leases prior to making his telephone call. On the evidence adduced at the trial it was only sheer chance that, in speaking to Mr Dunn, Mr Obeid was pushing on an open door.
  24. Second, the written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Obeid contend that he did not receive any financial benefit as a result of his offending conduct because he had only a potential interest in CQR’s businesses[111] and because the businesses ultimately went broke and the leases were terminated.[112] The finding that I have just made means that ultimately Mr Obeid’s representations to Mr Dunn did not confer any financial advantage on him or any member of his family. However, as I have explained, the effect of the jury’s verdict is that it found that he was solely motivated to lobby Mr Dunn to benefit either himself or his family. Given the closeness of the various family interests it makes no difference to any assessment of Mr Obeid’s criminality whether he sought to profit personally, benefit his wife, protect his sons’ investment or pursue all three.
  25. Third, the written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Obeid incorrectly contend that the essence of Mr Obeid’s criminality was his failure to disclose his interest in the leases to Mr Dunn.[113] Mr Obeid’s offence was not some omission to tell Mr Dunn of his or his family’s interest in CQR. The proper performance of his duty as a parliamentarian required that he not communicate with Mr Dunn for the purpose of advancing his or his family’s pecuniary interests. Nothing in this judgment should be taken as accepting that it was permissible for a parliamentarian such as Mr Obeid to lobby Mr Dunn to advance his or his family’s financial interests provided he disclose his or their interest. Whether parliamentarians can act in that manner without misconducting themselves was not an issue requiring resolution in this proceeding. In addition, I note that in this case Mr Dunn stated that, if Mr Obeid had disclosed his or his family’s interests in the Circular Quay leases, it would have affected the process of decision making[114] in that there would have been “a very high level of transparency” in respect of the decision making process and “[m]ore records or full records would have needed to be maintained about that potential conflict of interest.”[115]
  26. Fourth, Mr Obeid did not give evidence at his trial or at the sentence hearing. Instead, a report from a psychologist, Dr Christopher Lennings, was tendered which included his explanation for the offence.[116] This means of adducing such evidence is problematic in that the offender’s version cannot be tested (R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 at [58] to [59] per Smart AJ with whom Spigelman CJ agreed). Dr Lennings’ report recounts Mr Obeid stating that for a long period he had an interest in what he regarded as the mistreatment of traders at Circular Quay which prompted him to contact Mr Dunn and that his sons’ interest in the businesses at the Quay was only “coincidental”.[117] It follows from what I have stated that I must reject this explanation as it is completely inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.

Approach to Sentencing

  1. In R v Obeid (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1380 at [1] I observed that, even though the Parliament of New South Wales has enacted detailed statutory regimes for the detection, investigation and prevention of corrupt conduct by public officials,[118] for reasons best known to itself, the Parliament has not enacted legislation specifying whether and, if so, what improper or corrupt conduct by its own members constitutes a crime. Instead, Parliament left that topic to the vagaries and uncertainties of the common law.
  2. Since that statement, some of the uncertainties surrounding the application of the common law offence of wilful misconduct in public office to a parliamentarian have been resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeal’s judgment in Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309. Further, in relation to sentencing, the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“Sentencing Act”) apply to common law offences as well as statutory offences. Five aspects of that legislation are of particular relevance to the sentencing of Mr Obied, namely:
    • the identification of the purposes of sentencing (s 3A);
    • the prohibition on a Court sentencing an offender to imprisonment unless, having considered the alternatives, it is satisfied that no other form of punishment is appropriate (s 5(1));
    • the power, in some circumstances, to impose home detention or an intensive correction order on a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment (ss 6 and 7);
    • the specification of aggravating, mitigating and other factors in sentencing (s 21A); and
    • the power of the Court to alter the minimum ratio between a non-parole period and the balance of a sentence if “special circumstances” are found (s 44(2)).
  3. Nevertheless, the absence of a statutory regime governing the conduct of parliamentarians means that resort must be had, at least in part, to the common law to ascertain the relevant principles to be applied in sentencing a parliamentarian who has been convicted of wilful misconduct in public office. In particular, as wilful misconduct in public office is a common law offence there is no specified maximum penalty. This is a significant omission because, in sentencing for offences created by statute, the maximum penalty is a crucial component of the sentencing process because “[t]he maximum penalty for a statutory offence serves as an indication of the relative seriousness of the offence” and “[a]n increase in the maximum penalty for an offence is an indication that sentences for that offence should be increased” (Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at [31]).
  4. Instead, in sentencing for common law offences, the Courts adopt an analogous or corresponding statutory offence as a “reference point” for the imposition of a penalty (R v Hokin, Burton and Peisely [1922] NSWStRp 19; (1922) 22 SR (NSW) 280 at 291; Jaturawong v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 168; “Jaturawong; at [5]; Blackstock v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 172; “Blackstock”; at [8]). However, the adoption of the maximum penalty for a corresponding statutory provision as a reference point does not “fetter the discretion” to impose a sentence “which remains at large” and can be greater than that maximum (Blackstock at [11]).
  5. In Jaturawong at [6], Beazley JA (as her Honour then was and with whom Hall and Harrison JJ agreed) identified the relevant statutory analogue to the charge of misconduct in public office in that case as the offences of corruptly receiving commissions and other corrupt practices provided for in Pt 4A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for those offences was seven years imprisonment. In Jaturawong the principal offender was the manager of a Motor Registry who received regular payments to improperly allow applicants to obtain learner permits or drivers licences (at [14] to [18]). In Blackstock, the Court of Criminal Appeal also relied on the maximum of seven years imprisonment for the offences in Part 4A of the Crimes Act as a reference point (at [9]). The offender in Blackstock was a project officer employed by RailCorp who included a business in which he secretly held an interest on a list of possible contractors for consideration by his superiors (at [26]) and then “played a part in the allocation of work” to the business (at [28]).
  6. Neither of Jaturawong nor Blackstock hold that in all cases of misconduct in public office the relevant statutory analogue are those offences set out in Pt 4A of the Crimes Act. Instead, it was only found to be the appropriate analogue in those cases. As the decisions in R v Pieper [2014] NSWDC 242 and R v Purcell [2010] NSWDC 98 discussed below illustrate, the breadth of circumstances that could constitute the offence of misconduct in public office mean that other statutory analogues may be appropriate in a given case.
  7. In this case I am satisfied that the offences found in Pt 4A of the Crimes Act are the relevant analogue. Section 249B(1) of the Crimes Act effectively criminalises most forms of bribery by making it an offence for an agent to receive or solicit a benefit as an inducement or reward for doing something or not doing something in relation to the affairs or business of the agent’s principal. This provision is directed at an agent who receives or solicits a corrupt reward to breach their duty to their principal. Mr Obeid’s offending is broadly analogous to this because his conduct involved him breaching his duty to the public by using his position to further his or his family’s financial interests. There is no difference in substance between a parliamentarian receiving a bribe to advance the private interests of a third party and a parliamentarian using their position to advance their own pecuniary interests.
  8. Nevertheless, accepting that the offences found in Pt 4A, especially s 249B, are the relevant analogue, a comparison of the elements of the crime of wilful misconduct in public office with the offence of corruptly receiving a commission or reward in s 249B(1) reveals two differences of significance.
  9. The first is that the class of persons caught by the offence of wilful misconduct in public office generally occupy a more senior position than those caught by s 249B(1). With the latter, the persons subject to the offence are those who satisfy the definition of “agent” in s 249A, which includes “any person employed by, or acting for or on behalf of, any other person” (sub-s (a)). With wilful misconduct in public office the concept of “public office” is broad but it does not extend to all persons employed by or acting on behalf of the State (Ex parte Kearney [1917] NSW St Rp 68; 17 SR (NSW) 578).
  10. The second is that, as already noted, it is an element of wilful misconduct in public office that the relevant misconduct was serious and merited criminal punishment. There is no equivalent element for any of the offences found in Pt 4A of the Crimes Act.
  11. Each of these differences bear out the justification for the Court not being limited by the maximum penalty for the relevant statutory analogue, in this case seven years imprisonment.
  12. Another matter of significance to the sentencing exercise is the consideration of sentences in other cases both in terms of comparing sentencing outcomes and discerning what are the “unifying principles which those sentences both reveal and reflect” (see Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; (2014) 253 CLR 58 at [41]). The difficulty is that there is not a significant cohort of sentences for the offence of wiful misconduct in public office and none concern a parliamentarian. Thus, in Jansen v Regina [2013] NSWCCA 301 (“Jansen”) at [64] to [65] Campbell J noted the breadth of circumstances that could give rise to the offence of wilful misconduct in public office and that the available cohort of such cases was so small that they “are not capable of providing useful material that may establish a [sentencing pattern]”. This is borne out by the sentencing statistics compiled by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales which only disclose ten sentences imposed for the offence since 2009, seven of which involved full time custody and the balance of which involved the imposition of an Intensive Corrections Order.
  13. Nevertheless, the parties placed before the Court the results of their research concerning sentences for wilful misconduct in public office and for other offences committed by or concerning parliamentarians. Out of deference to the parties’ efforts I will briefly describe some of the cases referred to.
  14. I have already outlined some of the facts of Jaturawong and Blackstock. In Jaturawong the principal offender had pleaded guilty to wilful misconduct in public office and a number of charges under s 249B of the Crimes Act which yielded a 20 per cent discount (at [9]). He was sentenced to two years six months imprisonment with a nonparole period of 12 months for the misconduct charge (at [11]). The principal offender did not appeal. Instead, the appeal in Jaturawong concerned the sentence imposed on an accessory before the fact, which was upheld on parity grounds. In Blackstock the applicant received a discount of 25 per cent on account of their plea of guilty (at [47]). He was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a nonparole period of three years (at [3]). His appeal was dismissed. Campbell J observed that the sentence was “within the range available” to the sentencing judge (at [68]).
  15. In Jansen a police officer who pleaded guilty to accessing police intelligence and other sensitive information and disseminating it was sentenced to a nonparole period of two years and additional terms of two and half years (at [4]). A number of other charges were included on a Form 1 under s 33 of the Sentencing Act and he was sentenced for various summary offences pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (at [3]).
  16. In Hughes v R [2014] NSWCCA 15, the unsuccessful applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was a police officer who accessed a police database and created false intelligence reports. She pleaded guilty to two counts of wilful misconduct in public office, and two offences of giving false evidence to the Police Integrity Commission. For the first of the misconduct offences she received a fixed term of seven months imprisonment and for the second she received a total sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a nonparole period of nine months (at [5]).
  17. In R v Pieper [2014] NSWDC 242, the offender pleaded guilty to six counts of misconduct in public office and received a number of individual sentences totalling four years and nine months with an effective non-parole period of three years. The offender was the general manager of a County Council (at [9]) who orchestrated various frauds that resulted in his misappropriating over $350,000 (at [35]). Letherbarrow DCJ identified the relevant statutory analogue as larceny by a servant, the maximum penalty for which was ten years imprisonment (at [4]).
  18. In R v Purcell [2010] NSWDC 98, the offender was a police superintendent who persistently and deliberately disobeyed a direction from a superior officer concerning what the offender could say to members of the press about certain sexual assaults committed in the local area under his command (at [7]). Berman DCJ identified the relevant statutory analogue as an offence under s 201 of the Police Act 1990 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of a fine (at [17]). The offender was fined $2000 (at [38]).
  19. The written submissions filed on behalf Mr Obeid also referred to various sentencing decisions of interstate courts for wilful misconduct in public office. I have considered those authorities. None of them concern a parliamentarian, nor do they reveal any materially different outcome to the decisions of the courts of this State. The small number of them only confirms the infrequency with which sentences are imposed for this offence.
  20. These cases illustrate the variety of public officials who can commit the offence of wilful misconduct in public office and the variety of circumstances that can constitute the crime. These cases also illustrate that matters such as the period of the offending, the planning involved, its motivation and the direct loss occasioned or profit derived are all matters that bear upon an assessment of the level of criminality involved. However, the essence of the offence concerns a breach of trust in the form of a deliberate or reckless breach of a duty owed by a public official to the public (see DPP v Marks supra at [4]; HKSAR v Wong Kwong Shun Paul [2009] 4 HKLRD 840 at [44] per Yeung JA; Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1996) [1996] SASC 5674; 1996 67 SASR 63 at 66 per Doyle CJ). It must follow that a very significant matter to any assessment of the level of criminality involved is the nature of the duty that is owed and the extent of the breach. The more senior the public official the greater the level of public trust in their position and the more onerous the duty that is imposed. Under this State’s constitutional arrangements, and leaving aside the third arm of government, only Ministers occupy a more senior position than that occupied by parliamentarians.
  21. In its written submissions the Crown identified five cases involving offences either committed by or concerning parliamentarians, including Ministers. In this State the most notorious is Jackson & Hakim v R (1988) 33 A Crim R 413 (“Jackson”) in which the then Minister for Corrective Services was convicted of conspiracy for receiving bribes to effect the early release of prisoners on parole. Following a successful Crown appeal Jackson was resentenced to imprisonment for 10 years with a nonparole period of five years. In R v Rouse (Court of Criminal Appeal (Tas), 19 October 1990, unreported), (“Rouse”) a Crown appeal against the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on a prominent businessman was dismissed. The offender had pleaded guilty to offering a bribe to a member of the Tasmanian Parliament to cross the floor. In R v Nuttall; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] QCA 120; 209 A Crim R 538 (“Nuttall”) a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed upon a Queensland Cabinet Minister convicted of receiving secret commissions to plan and promote projects of his associates, was upheld. The offender was resentenced to imprisonment for a term of seven years, which ran concurrently with terms of imprisonment imposed for perjury offences.
  22. In R v Phillip Hans Field HC Auckland CRI-2007-092-18132, 6 October 2009 (“Field”) a member of the New Zealand Parliament was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four years imprisonment on each of eleven counts of bribery and corruption (at [89]). In his capacity as a parliamentarian, the offender had proffered advice and assistance to various trades people while accepting benefits from them in the form of work done on his properties (at [5]). In R v Bruneau, 1963 CarswellOnt 22; [1964] 1CCC 97; [1964] 1 OR 263, 42 CR 93 (“Bruneau”) a member of the Canadian Parliament who receive a corrupt payment to use his influence to have the Federal Government purchase the payer of the bribe’s property was resentenced to imprisonment for five years following a successful Crown appeal against the imposition of a suspended sentence.
  23. None of these cases concerning parliamentarians (including Ministers) establish some form of range of sentences relevant to this case. They involve different offences with different maximum penalties and, with one exception, concern different jurisdictions. Nevertheless, despite their differences a number of common propositions emerge.
  24. First, with the exception of Rouse, all these cases emphasise the onerous duty imposed on either parliamentarians or Ministers and the strictness which departures from that duty will be dealt with (Jackson at 436 per Lee J with whom Finlay J agreed; Nuttall at [49] per Muir JA with whom Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreed; Bruneau at [25] per McLennan JA).
  25. Second, while in some of the cases issues such as whether loss or damage was occasioned by the offending or a profit was made were relevant, in all the cases the Courts emphasised that the real damage caused by the offending conduct was to the institutions of government and public confidence in them (Jackson at 435 per Lee J with whom Finlay J agreed; Nuttall at [52] per Muir JA with whom Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreed; Rouse BC900030 at 8 per Cox J with whom Underwood and Wright JJ agreed; Field at [44] per Hansen J; Bruneau at [25] per McLennan JA).
  26. Third, in each case the necessity for the sentence to reflect considerations of general deterrence and denunciation predominated over other sentencing considerations (Jackson at 436 per Lee J with whom Finlay J agreed; Nuttall at [73] with whom Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreed; Rouse BC900030 at 9 per Cox J with whom Underwood and Wright JJ agreed; Field at [45] per Hansen J; Bruneau at [26] per McLennan JA).
  27. Fourth, in each case the prior good character of the offender was afforded less weight in the sentencing process than it would for other offences (Jackson at 436 per Lee J with whom Finlay JA agree; Nuttall at [58] per Muir JA with whom Fraser and Chesterman JJA agreed; Rouse BC900030 at 9 per Cox J with whom Underwood and Wright JJ agreed; Field at [85] per Hansen J; Bruneau at [25] per McLennan JA).
  28. All of these propositions are apposite to Mr Obeid’s case.
  29. At this point it is appropriate to address the competing submissions concerning the relative seriousness of Mr Obeid’s offending. I have already described Mr Obeid’s conduct and the state of mind that accompanied it. It is to be remembered that his offending conduct comprised a single phone call to Mr Dunn, although it was accompanied by follow up calls. As was submitted on behalf of Mr Obeid, he did not expressly advocate any outcome to Mr Dunn although the effect of his intervention was that the position Mr Scanlan was advocating should be strongly considered. Further, in the end result Mr Obeid’s intervention did not cause a change in the CLP. Relying on these and other matters it was submitted on behalf of Mr Obeid that his offending was “at the very bottom of the scale of objective seriousness for an offence of its kind.”[119] I disagree. For the reasons I have just explained, what must be at the forefront of any consideration of seriousness is the nature of the duty owed by Mr Obeid as a parliamentarian and the extent of the departure from that duty. The onerous nature of the former has been addressed. The relatively limited nature of Mr Obeid’s intervention in the process of renewing CQR’s leases bears on the latter but so does the finding of the jury that Mr Obeid intervened solely to benefit CQR, and through it, himself or his family.
  30. It can be accepted that Mr Obeid’s conduct was in the middle to lower end of the range of corrupt conduct by a parliamentarian that may amount to the crime of wilful misconduct in public office. However, that is not the proper inquiry. Instead, the relevant assessment is that, in the range of misconduct that might be engaged in by public officials which can constitute the offence of wilful misconduct in public office, Mr Obeid’s conduct was a very serious example of the offence because of the onerous nature of the duty owed by him as a parliamentarian compared to other such officials and the extent of his departure from it.

Mr Obeid’s Subjective Case

  1. The report of Dr Lennings referred to earlier also recounted aspects of Mr Obeid’s personal history. Unlike his account of the offence this was not controversial and was generally consistent with the other material that was tendered. Dr Lennings’ report reveals the following. Mr Obeid was born in Lebanon in 1943. He migrated to Australia with his family when he was six years old. His father was a clothes salesman but tragically died when Mr Obeid was nine years old.[120] After experiencing financial hardship, Mr Obeid and other members of his family returned to Lebanon in 1956 where he completed his schooling.[121] He returned to Australia six years later. He married his wife Judith in 1965. He and his wife had ten children over the next decade. One has since passed away. Mr Obeid studied commerce part time while working in a glass factory. He worked in an accounting firm and then with a building company.[122] Mr Obeid achieved financial success from a printing and newspaper business which he sold in 1986, as well from property development.[123] As already noted, in 1991 he was elected to Parliament as a Member of the Legislative Council and he retired in 2011 having been a Minister for four years from 1999.
  2. Prior to his election to Parliament Mr Obeid achieved a prominent position in the Lebanese and wider community. During the 1980s he served on the Board of Trustees of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, was a part time Commissioner of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, served on the Board of Governors of the Law Foundation of New South Wales and was Vice President of the Ethnic Press Association of Australia.[124] In 1990 he led a delegation to Iraq which secured the release of some hostages held by the Iraqi regime just prior to the first Gulf War.[125]
  3. There was tendered at the sentence hearing a number of testimonial statements concerning the significant support that Mr Obeid has provided to his Church and the work it performs, [126] including from his parish priest[127] and Archbishop.[128] A similar letter of support was provided by the President of the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council of Australia.[129]
  4. A number of other testimonials referred to his work for other community organisations as well as various acts of kindness he has performed for persons and organisations in need over the years. This included his support for various charities in Australian and Lebanon,[130] support for sporting clubs,[131] his funding of the rebuilding of a church in Lebanon,[132] assisting a neighbour who was the subject of a home invasion,[133] providing support for Lebanese community organisations[134] and his efforts to assist Lebanese refugees seeking to resettle in Australia.[135] Numerous friends and acquaintances of Mr Obeid testify to his generous nature and the position of leadership in the community that he occupied.[136]
  5. This material, and the absence of any prior convictions, means that Mr Obeid is to be considered of prior good character and that is a mitigating factor in sentencing (Sentencing Act; s 21A(3)(f)). However, consistent with what I have already observed (at [82]), in cases of corruption including wilful misconduct in public office where the need for general deterrence is especially strong, prior good character is to be afforded less weight than it otherwise would (R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284; [2004] NSWCCA 7 at [410] and R v Williams [2005] NSWSC 315; (2005) 152 A Crim R 548, at [60] per Wood CJ at CL; Blackstock at [67] per Campbell J with whom Macfarlan JA and Barr AJ agreed).

Family

  1. Mr Obeid has been married for over 50 years. He has nine children and 33 grandchildren. Many members of his family provided testamentary material in support of Mr Obeid, including three of his grandchildren,[137] various nieces and nephews,[138] some of his sons and daughters in law,[139] and some of his children.[140] They all referred to Mr Obeid’s devotion to his family and his support for them. While this material undoubtedly arouses sympathy, it is of no real assistance to Mr Obeid. There is no doubt that the members of Mr Obeid’s family are exceptionally close. However, it was Mr Obeid’s actions in prioritising the interests of his family over his obligation to the public that led to his offending in the first place. A parliamentarian cannot use their position to afford generosity to their family or associates in any form.
  2. A number of the testimonials from family members also referred to the effect on them of the adverse publicity that Mr Obeid has received over the years and their distress at the prospect that he may be incarcerated. For example, one of Mr Obeid’s grandsons recounted having to defend his grandfather in the schoolyard and the classroom.[141] Dr Lennings also interviewed Judith Obeid and his report confirms the severe distress that she has suffered from the adverse publicity her husband has attracted and the prospect that he may be incarcerated.[142] At the sentencing hearing a statement from Judith Obeid was tendered. In that statement Mrs Obeid describes her long and successful marriage. She states how hard her husband has worked for their family and how supportive he has been towards her.
  3. Clearly, Mrs Obeid’s family is her life. I accept that any decision to incarcerate Mr Obeid will cause significant distress to Judith Obeid. Dr Lennings opines that in turn Mr Obeid will be distressed by his wife’s suffering.[143] This too can be accepted. I address below the relevance of the impact of adverse publicity. Leaving that aside, the occasioning of hardship to the family of an offender from their imprisonment is only taken into account, at least in a substantial way, in “exceptional circumstances” (see Hay v R [2013] NSWCCA 22 at [49]). The hardship that would be occasioned to Mr Obeid’s family, including Judith Obeid, if he was imprisoned does not meet that description. Otherwise, it can be accepted that Mr Obeid’s reaction to the harm that his own conduct has caused to his family can be considered in the synthesis of the various factors affecting the determination of the appropriate sentence.

Media Reporting

  1. The written submissions lodged on behalf of Mr Obeid contend that he has suffered a form of extra curial punishment from extensive media coverage which, it was submitted, had humiliated him and, as noted, affected members of his family. [144] In support of that submission there was tendered at the sentence hearing two volumes of press clippings concerning Mr Obeid’s trial, which included online reports.[145] All the reports published prior to the jury’s verdict reported on the trial in a manner consistent with the media’s obligations. The reports published after the verdict concern such matters as Mr Obeid’s career, commentary on the verdict, coverage of civil proceedings initiated by Mr Obeid, the adjournments of the sentence hearing, a proposal floated by senior politicians to seek legislative change to remove Mr Obeid’s right to a parliamentary pension[146] and some unsolicited advice to the Court on the appropriate sentence. Some of the reporting on the jury’s verdict and its aftermath was somewhat unrestrained (eg “Obeid a disgrace”,[147] “…Fast Eddie, the Labor godfather”[148] and “The Cancer that ate Labor”)[149]. However, generally all the reports were concerned with the subject matter of corruption and politics, which is selfevidently a topic of legitimate public debate.
  2. A recent example whereby a sentence was mitigated on account of extensive publicity was R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015 (“Wran”), where articles were published that made allegations about the offender’s “criminality, sexual conduct and reputation that [had] no basis in fact but from which she [had] no ability to defend herself” (at [76]). It was also found in Wran that material that was published represented a gross invasion of the offender’s privacy in that her “private correspondence [had] been extracted for prurient consumption” and transcripts of her telephone conversations with her mother were made available to the public (Wran at [76]). In those circumstances, Harrison J concluded that the sentence imposed should take account of these publications as they increased “the risk of custodial retribution”, damaged the offender’s reputation and impeded her “recovery from her ongoing mental health and drug related problems” (Wran at [79]).
  3. Wran is an example of a case where extra curial punishment was occasioned by the publication of humiliating material obtained as a result of criminal charges being laid that was either unrelated to the offending in question or where the level of publicity for the material was disproportionate to any relevance it had to the offence in question. The offender in Wran was not a public figure and her offending did not involve the abuse of any public position.
  4. In this case the offender is a public figure, the offending did involve the abuse of a public position and the media reports that have been tendered do not sensationalise facts that are either irrelevant or trivial to the offending conduct. Instead, they are concerned with an issue of public importance, namely, political corruption. In those circumstances it seems incongruous that the consequential public humiliation should mitigate the sentence. Nevertheless, there is a body of authority to suggest that it can. In Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267 (“Ryan”) at [177], Callinan J observed that “the crime of a person occupying an office of some prominence will often attract much greater vilification, adverse publicity, public humiliation, and personal, social and family stress than a crime by a person not so circumstanced” and that those consequences “should not be ignored by the sentencing court”. Kirby J stated a similar view (at [123]) but McHugh J was of the contrary opinion (at [53]).
  5. This difference of opinion was adverted to by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6 (“Kenny”) at [18] to [22] per Basten JA and Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87 (“Einfeld”) at [99] per Basten JA. In the end result, the principle binding this Court at first instance appears to be that such publicity will only be considered where “it reaches such proportion as to have a physical or psychological effect on the offender” (Duncan v R [2012] NSWCCA 78 at [28] per Basten JA citing Kenny at [49] per Howie J; see also Nuttall at [65]). At first instance, in Einfeld the relevant publicity was found to have that effect (R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 at [161] per James J).
  6. Dr Lennings’ report describes Mr Obeid as stating that his reputation has been destroyed,[150] but neither it nor the testimonial material describes the adverse publicity that Mr Obeid has received, much less that which relates to this case, as having had any direct physical or psychological effect on him. Instead, it has had an effect on his family. It follows that it is only in the relatively limited sense that Mr Obeid is affected by their suffering from the consequences of his offending that this can be considered.
  7. It was also submitted that the potential loss of Mr Obeid’s parliamentary pension can be taken into account. The loss of financial benefits such as superannuation can be considered in determining sentence (Ryan at [54] per McHugh J). Accordingly, I can and will afford this some weight but not much given that the only evidence suggesting this may occur are the press reports to which I have referred.

Medical Conditions

  1. A number of medical reports concerning Mr Obeid were tendered at the sentencing hearing. Those reports reveal that Mr Obeid underwent bypass surgery in 1995 and 2005 and had arterial stenting procedures in 1999 and again in 2015 following an episode of chest pain and breathlessness.[151] Mr Obeid has suffered from type 2 diabetes for years. He must ingest insulin with his meals and receives a longacting insulin injection daily.[152] According to his treating endocrinologist, Dr Kean, he “self manage[s] his diabetes currently without difficulty”.[153] Otherwise, Mr Obeid suffers from raised cholesterol, high blood pressure and colonic polyps that require periodic colonoscopies.[154] He has previously suffered from GuillainBarre Syndrome, which is a rapid-onset of muscle weakness caused by the immune system damaging the peripheral nervous system. It is presently stable.[155] Further, a thoracic physician reports that scans show that Mr Obeid has “asbestos related pulmonary disease” and bronchiectasis.[156]
  2. On 3 August 2016, Mr Obeid tripped at home and fell onto a coffee table which collapsed under him. He was taken to a hospital on the North shore of Sydney but discharged. The next day he attended his general practitioner, Dr Lahood, who commissioned an MRI scan and had him admitted to St Vincent’s Hospital.[157] He came under the care of Dr John O’Neill who concluded that he had suffered a mild stroke caused by an embolism and prescribed blood thinning medication.[158]
  3. Mr Obeid was referred to Dr David Rosen a consultant neurologist who examined him and reviewed his condition in light of the totality of the available material concerning all of his various medical conditions. He concluded that Mr Obeid has “ongoing post stroke symptoms and impairments that affect mainly his gait and balance”. He considered that there was some “permanent albeit relatively mild damage … to the right side of the brain” as seen on an MRI scan.[159] Dr Rosen estimated that Mr Obeid had a risk of a recurrent stroke from any cause “in the region of 5% per year.”[160]
  4. The Crown arranged for Mr Obeid to be reviewed by a consultant geriatrician and physician, Dr Tuly Rosenfeld. Dr Rosenfeld’s assessment of Mr Obeid’s neurological status was not relevantly different to that of Dr Rosen.[161] Dr Rosenfeld detected “[m]ild cognitive impairment”.[162]
  5. Overall, Dr Rosenfeld concluded that the various medical conditions from which Mr Obeid suffers are “stable and controlled” and there “is no clearly foreseeable expectation in the short to midterm that specific interventions will be required”. However, he accepts that there is a “need for regular monitoring and review, adjustment of specific therapies from time to time, blood investigations, diabetic dietary measures, physical therapy and exercise”.[163] Dr Rosen’s description of the type of care required by Mr Obeid is not relevantly different in that he considers that Mr Obeid “ideally” requires a “well coordinated management plan” that “takes into consideration each of Mr Obeid’s medical conditions” and medicinal requirements.[164]
  6. Two interrelated issues of fact were raised by the material concerning Mr Obeid’s medical condition, namely, the likely standard of care that he can expect to receive if he is incarcerated and his likely life expectancy if he is incarcerated compared with his life expectancy if he serves a sentence in the community.
  7. The Crown tendered a number of reports from “Justice Health”[165] being a statutory health corporation the functions of which include the provision of health services to offenders and persons in custody (Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW); s 236A). These reports address the various conditions affecting Mr Obeid and describe the medical services that will be available to him to address them if he is incarcerated. The reports state that Justice Health’s services include 24hour nursing in some metropolitan centres, regular medical officer and nursing clinics, a physiotherapy service at the major metropolitan correctional centres, a medical subacute unit within the Long Bay hospital, an aged care rehabilitation unit at Long Bay hospital and access to specialists at the Prince of Wales Hospital. [166] The reports indicate that, if Mr Obeid is incarcerated, Justice Health will request that he be accommodated in the metropolitan area at a facility that has full time nursing care and nearby access to specialists and emergency departments.[167]
  8. Dr Rosen considered it was unlikely that Mr Obeid would receive appropriate medical treatment in custody if he was incarcerated. He considered that there were “difficulties” with “managing chronic diseases with access to appropriate and timely care in the prison system”.[168] Dr Rosenfeld disagreed. He was formerly the Director of Geriatric Medicine and Senior Specialist in Geriatric Medicine at Prince of Wales Hospital which, as noted, interacts with Justice Health. Based on his knowledge of Justice Health, which he accepts has limitations, Dr Rosenfeld considers it “likely that Mr Obeid would be able to access appropriate and effective care within the Justice Health system”.[169]
  9. In his oral submissions, the Crown Prosecutor did not accept that Mr Obeid would receive a superior level of care if he remained in the community compared with what he would receive if he is incarcerated.[170] While that may be the case for some members of the population I do not accept that it is correct for Mr Obeid. As the events of August 2016 illustrate, Mr Obeid has an existing support network that includes an experienced general practitioner, a strongly supportive family and specialists familiar with his circumstances. The Crown Prosecutor’s written submissions contend that Mr Obeid’s present treatment regime is “wholly medication based”.[171] However, the nature of Mr Obeid’s ailments are such that he needs to be monitored. While there is obviously a form of supervision in custody, that is not the same as the level of family and medical support that Mr Obeid has in the community. Nevertheless, while I accept that Mr Obeid would receive a superior level of care in the community, the material tendered by the Crown on this issue at least satisfied me that he would receive an adequate level of care if he is incarcerated. As noted by Dr Rosenfeld, Mr Obeid’s present condition is “stable and controlled”.
  10. Leaving aside the possibility that he may be incarcerated, Dr Rosen and Dr Rosenfeld were in broad agreement as to Mr Obeid’s life expectancy in light of his various medical conditions. Dr Rosen estimated that it was between 76.6 years and 77.7 years[172] and Dr Rosenfeld estimated that it was 80.3 years.[173] However, Dr Rosen estimated that Mr Obeid’s life expectancy would reduce much further if he was incarcerated, specifically, by two years for every year he was in custody.[174] Dr Rosenfeld noted that this conclusion was based on a study of a cohort of New York prisoners who were released from prison after most of them committed violent or drug related crimes.[175] I do not accept that that study has any relevance to Mr Obeid’s circumstances and I do not accept Dr Rosen’s estimate of Mr Obeid’s life expectancy should he be incarcerated. Instead, I consider that it is within the range of 77 to 80 years that I have mentioned.
  11. On behalf of Mr Obeid it was submitted that his limited life expectancy was a matter that warranted grounds for leniency. It was otherwise submitted that custody would be onerous for someone of his age and with his ailments and that he would receive a far superior level of care in the community.
  12. The principles relevant to a submission that a penalty should be mitigated on account of health concerns and the relevance of the length of a sentence to a person’s life expectancy can be briefly stated as follows.
  13. First, in circumstances where illness is relevant to the determination of a sentence, its weight must be assessed in light of “all the circumstances of the case, and an appropriate balance has to be maintained between the criminality of the offender and any damage to health or shortening of life” (R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186; 216 A Crim R 152, “Achurch” at [117] per Johnson J citing: R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570 at 573; R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60; 112 A Crim R 1 at 6-8 [23][31]).
  14. Second, although the health of an offender is relevant to the type and length of any sanction imposed, generally it will only be a mitigating factor “when there is evidence to show that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will be a greater burden on an offender, by reason of ill health, or where there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a grave adverse effect on the offender’s health” (R v Badanjak [2004] NSWCCA 395 at [9] per Wood CJ at CL with McClellan AJA and Smart AJ agreeing; R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 at 589; Achurch at [118]).
  15. Third, the relative strictness that is applied to a consideration of whether some matter affecting the health of an offender operates as a substantial mitigating factor does not necessarily apply when such matters are considered in combination with other factors such as age in determining whether “special circumstances” are established for the purposes of s 44(2) of the Sentencing Act (see Griffiths v The Queen [1989] HCA 39; (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379 per Brennan and Dawson JJ; R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704). However, double counting of matters affecting the length of the head sentence and matters that might constitute special circumstances must be avoided (R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 at [18] per Spigelman CJ (“Fidow”)).
  16. Fourth, an otherwise appropriate sentence of imprisonment should not be reduced on the basis that it is likely to extend to most of the offender’s remaining life expectancy (Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390 at [128] per James J, with whom Hidden and Hislop JJ agreed; Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164 at [22]).
  17. I have described the ailments affecting Mr Obeid and his treatment regime. They are not unusual for a person of his age. I accept that they may make any time he serves in custody more difficult and that it is unlikely that he would receive the same standard of care that he would receive in the community, although it will nevertheless be an adequate standard. However, I do not accept that the combination of his age, health and reduced life expectancy is a matter of any real significance to a determination of whether he should be incarcerated or not. If he is to be incarcerated those matters can be taken into account in the mix of factors relevant to a determination of the appropriate length of the sentence but not to any significant degree. I also accept that his age and health might, with other factors, constitute special circumstances, however as just stated they cannot be taken into account as both mitigating any head sentence and determining the existence of special circumstances (Fidow).

Delay

  1. On behalf of Mr Obeid, it was submitted that there was a significant delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities in commencing the prosecution in that the offence was committed in 2007, when Mr Obeid was 63, yet proceedings were only commenced against him in November 2014. It is an agreed fact that the relevant hearings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“ICAC”) into this matter commenced in October 2013, that the ICAC report was published in June 2014 and a brief of material was provided to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions during September and October 2014.
  2. This history does not indicate any undue delay between the commencement of the ICAC hearing and the commencement of the proceedings. In relation to the period between the commission of the offence in 2007 and the commencement of the ICAC hearing, there is nothing to indicate that any relevant investigative or prosecutorial body was on notice of the commission of an offence during that period. Corrupt conduct is notoriously difficult to detect, much less prosecute.
  3. The delay between the commission of an offence and the imposition of a sentence is potentially relevant in three respects. The first is that the “uncertain suspense in which a person may be left” for an extended period can be taken into account (Blanco v R [1999] NSWCCA 121 (“Blanco”) at [16]). In circumstances where it has not been shown that any relevant investigative or prosecutorial body was on notice of Mr Obeid’s conduct and delayed taking action, I do not accept that this aspect of delay has any relevance to his sentencing (cf Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32 at [17]). The second is that an offender may demonstrate progress towards rehabilitation in the intervening period (Blanco at [16]). Mr Obeid will be sentenced on the basis that there is no prospect of him offending again. The third is that a “sentence for a stale crime does call for a measure of understanding and flexibility of approach” (Blanco id). I do not accept that Mr Obeid’s offence is a “stale crime”.

Other Sentencing Factors

  1. Section 21A(2) of the Sentencing Act lists a series of aggravating factors the Court is to take into account in determining the appropriate sentence. These factors cannot be considered as aggravating the offence if they are elements of the offence. Section 21A(3) lists a series of mitigating factors.
  2. The only specific aggravating factor pointed to by the Crown is that the “the offence was committed for financial gain” (Sentencing Act, s 21A(2)(o)).[176] I have already explained the effect of the jury’s verdict in that respect and this has formed part of the assessment of the level of criminality involved in the commission of the offence. It cannot be considered as a further aggravating factor at this point.
  3. On behalf of Mr Obeid it was submitted that eight mitigating factors were established.[177] The first was that “the injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by the offence was not substantial” (s 21A(3)(a)). I have accepted that Mr Obeid’s representations to Mr Dunn had no effect on the ultimate decision to offer CQR new leases. In that respect, no loss or damage was occasioned. However, as I have explained, the crime of wilful misconduct in public office necessarily involves a violation of a public trust. When that involves a parliamentarian, damage is caused to the institutions of government, specifically Parliament.
  4. The second mitigating factor submitted on behalf of Mr Obeid was that the offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity (s 21A(3)(b)). I do not accept that this mitigating factor has been established. While the Crown did not prove that Mr Obeid had been planning to intervene in the lease renewal process for some time, it was not positively established that his actions were spontaneous.
  5. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth mitigating factors suggested on behalf of Mr Obeid were that the offender does not have any record (or any significant record) of previous convictions (s 21A(3)(e)), that the offender was a person of good character (s 21A(3)(f)), that the offender is unlikely to re-offend (s 21A(2)(g)) and that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation, whether by reason of the offender’s age or otherwise (s 21A(3)(h). All these factors are established.
  6. The seventh mitigating factor is that remorse has been shown by the offender for the offence. Section 21A(3)(i) of the Sentencing Act provides that the remorse of an offender is a mitigating factor, but only if the offender has provided “evidence that he or she has accepted responsibility for his or her actions” (sub-s(i)) and “has acknowledged any injury, loss or damage caused by his or her actions or made reparation for such injury, loss or damage” (subs (ii)). Mr Obeid has done neither.
  7. The eighth and last mitigating factor relied on by Mr Obeid, was that he provided assistance to law enforcement authorities (s 21A(3)(m)). The written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Obeid referred to the cooperative and efficient manner in which the trial was conducted and contended that this amounted to “assistance provided to law enforcement authorities …. in proceedings relating to, the offence concerned” as referred to in s 23 of the Sentencing Act. This aspect of s 23 is directed to persons who give evidence or assistance to the prosecution or volunteer additional information concerning their own conduct and not to the cooperation by an accused in the conduct of their own trial as occurred here. However, the conduct of the trial by an accused can still be considered. Section 21A(3)(l) provides that the degree of pre-trial disclosure by the defence is a mitigating factor in sentencing. Section 22A(1) expands upon this by enabling a court to impose a lesser penalty than would otherwise be the case having regard to the degree to which the administration of justice has been facilitated by an offender’s defence, including by disclosures made prior to or during the trial. Any such lesser penalty must not be disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence (s 22A(2)).
  8. I accept that the manner in which the trial was conducted by and on behalf of Mr Obeid warrants some leniency on this account. The cross examination of the Crown witnesses was concise. There were a number of admissions made and agreements reached over the contents of exhibits which shortened the length of the trial and made the identification of the real issues that the jury had to determine that much easier.

Conclusion

  1. Courts do not determine sentences by consulting opinion polls or surveying the views of the political commentariat. Instead, they undertake an objective assessment of the nature of the offending, determine the personal circumstances of the offender and then apply principles derived from statute and case law.
  2. To that end, I have described the conduct of Mr Obeid that constituted the crime of wilful misconduct in public office. As noted, even though it was effectively constituted by a single telephone call, his conduct was a very serious example of that offence given the nature of the duty owed by him as a parliamentarian and the extent of his departure from that duty. I have also canvassed the other considerations relevant to sentencing and in doing so described Mr Obeid’s career and personal circumstances. If Mr Obeid had not wilfully abused his position as a parliamentarian then his life and career would be a testament to the values of hard work, family and public service. Instead, his time in public life has produced a very different legacy.
  3. Section 3A of the Sentencing Act specifies the purposes of sentencing. These include specifically deterring the offender from committing similar offences (s 3A(b)), protecting the community from the offender (s 3A(c)) and promoting the rehabilitation of the offender (s 3A(d)). In Mr Obeid’s case there is no prospect of him committing any further offence and the community does not now need any protection from him.
  4. Section 3A also specifies that the purposes of sentencing include ensuring the offender is adequately punished for the offence (s 3A(a)), making the offender accountable for their actions (s 3A(e)), denouncing the conduct of the offender (s 3A(f)), recognising the harm done to the community by the offence (s 3A(g)) and deterring others from committing similar offences (s 3A(b)).
  5. The overwhelming majority of parliamentarians are not motivated by an intention to enrich themselves or their families. Instead, they act in what they believe to be the best interests of the electorate, cognisant that the most likely reward for their service is persistent criticism and ultimately electoral rejection. The continuity and relative strength of our parliamentary democracy is a product of their efforts and the maintenance of public confidence in their honesty. All the work of parliamentarians can be destroyed by the wilful misconduct of only some of their members. Corruption by elected representatives consumes democracies. It destroys public confidence in democratic institutions. It opens up consideration of alternative modes of government, especially those that offer an illusion of security and order.
  6. It follows that the need for general deterrence, denunciation and recognition of the harm done to the community are the dominant considerations in determining the appropriate sentence for a parliamentarian convicted of wilful misconduct in public office in these circumstances. Given the nature of the offending and notwithstanding Mr Obeid’s personal circumstances, I am satisfied that, having considered all possible alternatives, no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate (Sentencing Act; s 5(1). I have also determined that such a sentence must be one that is served by full time imprisonment for a period that exceeds the length of the sentence that would otherwise enable consideration of the possibility of home detention or the imposition of an intensive correction order (Sentencing Act; s 6(1) and 7(1)). However, as adverted to (at [119]), the combination of Mr Obeid’s health and age justifies a finding of special circumstances and a variation of the maximum ratio between the balance of term and the nonparole period referred to in s 44(2) of the Sentencing Act.
  7. Edward Moses Obeid, I note that you have already been convicted of wilful misconduct in public office. You are now sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
  8. Pursuant to s 44(1) and s 44(2) of the Sentencing Act and in light of the finding of special circumstances, I set a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 15 December 2016, and an additional term of 2 years commencing on 15 December 2019 and ending on 14 December 2021.
  9. The sentence will be taken to have commenced on 15 December 2016. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 15 December 2019 and the sentence will expire on 14 December 2021.

**********


[1] [1951] HCA 5; 83 CLR 1 (the “Communist Party Case”)
[2] At p 187
[3] Ex A, p 7 at [1]
[4] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [20]
[5] Ex A, p 7 at [1]
[6] Ex A, p 7 at [3] to [5]
[7] Ex A, p 127
[8] Ex A, pp 1 to 3
[9] Ex A, pp 37 to 38
[10] T 07/06/16 at 57.5
[11] T 07/07/16 at 101.45
[12] Ex A, pp 85 and 92
[13] Ex A, p 7 at [6]
[14] Ex A, p 7 at [6]
[15] Ex A, pp 24 and 35
[16] T 07/06/2016 at 102.41, 104.29, 109.4 and 110
[17] T 07/06/16 at 108.32
[18] T 07/06/2016 at 108
[19] T 08/06/2016 at 133.42
[20] T 07/06/16 at 100; T 08/06/16 at 133.11
[21] T 07/06/16 at 111
[22] T 08/06/16 at 139.21
[23] T 07/06/16 at 114.44
[24] T 08/06/16 at 134 to 135, esp 135.15
[25] T 08/06/16 at 134.40
[26] Ex C
[27] Ex A, pp 46a and 46c; Ex D
[28] Ex A, pp 48a and 48d
[29] T 14/06/16 at 360
[30] Summing up (“SU”), p 14
[31] T 15/06/16 at 432.49
[32] T 14/06/16 at 368.31 and 372
[33] T 14/06/16 at 373.15
[34] T 15/06/16 at 428.7
[35] T 14/06/16 at 372.47
[36] T 15/06/16 at 426.1
[37] T 15/06/16 at 427.40
[38] T 08/06/16 at 136.6 to 137
[39] T 08/06/16 at 139.37
[40] T 08/06/16 at 152:21
[41] Ex A, p 99
[42] Ex A, p 100
[43] T 15/06/16 at 439
[44] Ex A, p 104
[45] Ex A, pp 206 to 207
[46] T 15/06/16 at 449.20
[47] T 15/06/16 at 449.41
[48] T 09/6/2016 at 202.47 and 249.30
[49] T 09/06/16 at 254.38
[50] T 16/06/16 at 524.21
[51] T 16/06/16 at 529.37
[52] Ex A, p 223 and 249
[53] Ex A, p 240, clause 4.5
[54] Ex A, p 250
[55] Ex A, p 251
[56] T 17/06/16 at 574.13 and 574.39
[57] T 17/06/16 at 575.31
[58] T 17/06/16 at 575.20
[59] T 17/06/16 at 582
[60] T 17/06/16 at 583.25
[61] T 17/06/16 at 583.34
[62] T 20/06/16 at 627.15
[63] T 20/06/16 at 631 to 632
[64] T 17/06/16 at 583
[65] T 17/06/16 at 583.50
[66] Ex A, pp 15 to 17
[67] Ex A, p 10 at [40]; T 17/06/16 at 618.1
[68] T 17/06/16 at 594.13
[69] T 17/06/16 at 601.36
[70] T 17/06/16 at 617.29
[71] Ex A, p 9
[72] T 17/06/16 at 552.16
[73] T 17/06/16 at 599.28
[74] T 16/06/16 at 533.30
[75] T 17/06/16 at 616.33
[76] T 16/06/16 at 533.31; T 16/06/16 at 536.21; T 17/06/16 at 616.35
[77] Ex A, p 262
[78] Ex A, p 265, clause 4.5
[79] Ex A, p 261
[80] Ex A, pp 268 and 274
[81] Ex A, p 290
[82] Ex A, p 295
[83] T 08/06/16 at 129.40 and 168.27
[84] T 21/06/2016 at 711.44
[85] MFI 16
[86] SU, p 19
[87] SU, p 21
[88] SU, pp 25 to 26; MFI 16
[89] T 06/06/16 at 2
[90] SU, pp 26 to 27
[91] SU, p 41
[92] T 21/06/16 at 719.10
[93] T 20/06/16 at 651.5
[94] Ex A, p 8 at [15]
[95] see SU, p 60
[96] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [19] and [73]
[97] SU, p 62
[98] SU, p 61
[99] SU, p 61
[100] MFI 16; SU, p 63
[101] SU, p 64
[102] SU, p 65
[103] SU, pp 26 and 67
[104] SU, p 72
[105] SU, p 72
[106] T 20/06/16 at 629.4
[107] T 20/06/16 at 631 to 632
[108] T 20/06/16 at 633.37 to 41
[109] T 20/06/16 at 632 to 633
[110] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [61]
[111] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [24]
[112] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [65]
[113] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [13] to [15]
[114] T 17/06/16 at 584.42
[115] T 17/06/16 at 585.13
[116] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1
[117] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [7]
[118] Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) and the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996.
[119] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [13]
[120] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [13]
[121] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [16]
[122] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [18]
[123] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [19]
[124] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 28
[125] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 17 and 22
[126] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 27 and 37
[127] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 16
[128] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 42
[129] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 47
[130] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 11, 18, 23, 39
[131] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 11, 13 and 48
[132] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 19
[133] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 9
[134] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 31, 49, 50 and 52
[135] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 20 and 36
[136] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 30, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 51
[137] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 8, 10 and 26
[138] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 14
[139] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 24, 33 and 29
[140] Ex 2 on sentence, tabs 34 and 21
[141] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 8
[142] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [33]
[143] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 1 at [32]
[144] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [92ff]
[145] Ex 1 on sentence
[146] Ex 1 on sentence, pp 223 to 225, 511 and 609
[147] Ex 1 on sentence, p 166
[148] Ex 1 on sentence, p 134
[149] Ex 1 on sentence, p 176
[150] At [31]
[151] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, p 5; Ex 2 on sentence, tab 4
[152] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 6
[153] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 6
[154] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, at 10; Ex 2, tab 5
[155] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, p 10
[156] Ex A on sentence, tab 7
[157] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 3
[158] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 6.10
[159] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 17.2
[160] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 18.1
[161] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, pp 7 and 9
[162] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, p 9.5
[163] Ex A on sentence, tab 1, p 10.8
[164] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 19.9
[165] Ex A on sentence at tabs 2 to 6
[166] Ex A on sentence at tab 6
[167] Ex A on sentence at tab 4
[168] Ex 2 at tab 2, p 19.6
[169] Ex A at tab 2, p 12
[170] T 01/12/2016 at 11.35
[171] At [56]
[172] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 18.10
[173] Ex A on sentence, tab 2, p 12.5
[174] Ex 2 on sentence, tab 2, p 19.1
[175] Ex A on sentence, tab 2, p 13
[176] Crown Submissions on Sentence at [39]
[177] Defence Outline of Submissions on Sentence at [111]


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2016/1815.html