The accused are charged with the murder of Joseph Antoun ("the Antoun murder"). The trial, which is by Judge alone, commenced around an hour before the orders to which this judgment relates were made. Arguments relating to the matter were made before the trial commenced but a decision could not be made until the NSW Crime Commission complied with certain undertakings made to the Court in the absence of the parties. A jury is presently considering its verdicts in respect of a large number of charges against the same two accused as well as three other men. Those charges include the murder of Mahmoud Hamzy and a conspiracy to murder Mohammed Hamzy ("the Hamzy murder"). The two trials were separated as a result of orders made in February 2016: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 3) (Severance and separate trial) [2016] NSWSC 15.
Prior to the commencement of the first trial, the accused Farhad Qaumi brought a notice of motion seeking orders under ss 45(4) and 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) requiring the NSW Crime Commission to produce the transcripts of certain evidence to the Court and then to release those transcripts to the parties in the trial. Ultimately, an edited transcript of the evidence of a particular witness ("the Witness") was released to the accused: R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11) (s 45 Crime Commission Act) [2016] NSWSC 211. That judgment was in two parts. The first part, which was released to the parties in the trial, set out in general the principles by which I was guided in reaching my decision. The second part, which was not released to the parties and which will remain confidential and not for publication due to the sensitive nature of its contents, sets out the reasons for my decisions under s 45(5) that were specific to the evidence that had been produced by the Commission to the Court under a certificate issued pursuant to s 45(4).
After the jury in the Hamzy murder trial retired to consider its verdicts, a number of pre-trial issues were ventilated in respect of the Antoun murder trial. The accused brought a notice of motion seeking production of the evidence given by the Witness before the Crime Commission in respect of the Antoun murder. This material was not pressed before the first trial and the transcript provided at that time was edited accordingly. The Crime Commission did not object to an order under s 45(4) and an edited transcript was provided to the Court. Further, there was no objection for the edited transcript being released to the accused and to the Crown under s 45(5). Accordingly, having satisfied myself that the interests of justice so required it, I provided the Commission with a Certificate under s 45(4) and made an order that the edited transcript of the Witness be released to the parties.
In considering the notice of motion that related specifically to the Witness, and having revisited the judgment in R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11), I recalled that the notice of motion originally filed was cast in wider terms and sought "any evidence given before the Commission relating to the murder of Joseph Antoun". What was not known to the parties in this trial was that the Commission had produced transcripts of evidence given by other witnesses. This was dealt with in the confidential annexure to the judgment. With the consent of the parties, the Court was closed to all except for officers of the Commission and its lawyers. I raised the matter with the Crime Commission's representatives and, in order to ensure the fairness of the trial proceedings, I made an order of my own motion under s 45(4) that certain evidence be again produced to the Court. Having considered that evidence, I advised Senior Counsel for the accused that there may be other evidence caught by their original notice of motion but not caught by the notice of motion brought specifically in advance of the Antoun trial. I invited Senior Counsel to identify the forensic purpose or reason that they had originally sought production of "any evidence relating to the murder of Joseph Antoun" and to articulate the issues in the trial to which evidence given to the Crime Commission might relate.
A specific issue referred to by Senior Counsel concerned the gun (a .38 snub nosed revolver) that, on the Crown case, was used to murder Joseph Antoun. This issue arose as a result of questions asked in the course of the evidence of the Witness and a suggestion that this gun had been used in other crimes not connected with the accused. [1] It is not clear that the Witness agreed with the proposition, although they did agree that they "touched heaps of guns". As I read the two transcripts produced by the Commission in the course of the pre-trial hearing relating to the Antoun murder trial, I did not notice any reference to the murder weapon and the representatives for the Crime Commission confirmed that there was no reference to the murder weapon in those transcripts.
The more general issue raised by Senior Counsel concerned whether there was evidence that suggested that any other person may had a motive to kill Joseph Antoun. The Crown case against the accused is that the accused accepted a contract to murder Mr Antoun from a person called Les Elias. There may also be evidence that another man, Pasqaule Barbaro, with whom at least one of the accused has some association, may have been motivated to do harm to Mr Antoun. The Crown case is that the accused engaged a man known as Witness L to carry out the murder. Witness L has been sentenced for the murder and is expected to give evidence against the accused in the trial: R v NK (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1257. I accepted the submission of Senior Counsel that evidence that other people may have had a motive to kill Joseph Antoun is evidence that has the capacity to impact on the likelihood or probability that the two accused were involved in a joint criminal enterprise to murder Mr Antoun.
I reviewed the evidence that was produced by the Commission and received confidential evidence and submissions in closed court. As to the undesirability of, but necessity for this procedure: see R v Qaumi (No 11) at [11]. It is unnecessary, and not possible in the time available, to go into great detail at this stage but I have considered a number of matters that are relevant to the power under s 45(5) [2] including the following:
1. There is some evidence in the transcripts produced by the Commission suggesting that other people may have had a motive to harm Mr Antoun.
2. The existence of motives in other persons is relevant to the issues in the trial and, generally speaking, the accused are entitled to be aware of those motives and the identity of those people.
3. There is evidence that at least one of the witnesses is in fear for his safety if his identity is revealed or his transcript is released. This fear relates not only to the accused but more generally to other persons. I accept that the fear is genuine.
4. The same witness specifically opposed the release of the material and was, very briefly, legally represented before me. The submission made on the witness's behalf was simply that the release of the material was opposed and that the witness feared for his safety if his identity was revealed.
5. The Commission has not been able to contact or locate the other witness.
6. The Commission has fears for the safety of both witnesses if their identity is revealed or the fact that they gave evidence is disclosed.
7. Both witnesses were compelled to give evidence.
8. Both witnesses were told that their evidence was private and would not be published outside of the Commission.
9. The evidence of the witnesses was inconsistent both internally and when comparison is made with the evidence of the other.
10. The evidence, at least on a reading of the transcript, is lacking in credibility although it could not be said that it is fanciful. [3]
11. Much of the relevant material came in the form of the questioning, rather than in the answers given by the witnesses. On some occasions, the witness agreed with the proposition being put. On others, they did not. In other instances, the witness initially denied knowledge but, under pressure, conceded some awareness of the matters upon which they were being examined.
12. The evidence does not, of itself, have a capacity to refute the Crown case or its case theory but it is relevant and, where it suggests that others may have a motive to do harm to Mr Antoun, ought to be made known to the accused in some form.
13. A good deal of the relevant material is in the public domain and may be known to the accused or their lawyers.
The Commission opposed the release of the transcripts. Toward the end of submissions, the Commission was invited to consider whether it would be prepared to advise the parties in writing of the substance of evidence or motives in others. In particular, I identified the following areas that caused me concern:
1. The suggestion that…
2. The suggestion that…
3. The suggestion that…
4. The suggestion that…
5. The media articles and blogs that became exhibit VD D.
The last mentioned items were tendered in closed court but they did not become confidential exhibits. The media articles and blogs were tendered to establish that a good deal of the material is in the public domain. The particular matter referred to in the articles that are separate from the other four matters identified concerns evidence given before a Royal Commission that suggests some connection between Joseph Antoun, the CFMEU and a suggestion of corrupt payments. This, again, might give rise to a motive outside the paradigm of the case that I anticipate will be presented by the Crown. It may be a rather long bow to draw, but if the accused and their legal representatives are not aware of it, it is material that they may wish to consider.
I was informed on the day that the trial proper commenced, that the Crime Commission had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the following terms and that the letter has been disclosed to the accused lawyers:
"RE: The Queen v Farhad Qaumi and Mumtaz Qaumi
Supreme Court of New South Wales at Sydney
I write to disclose to you - in accordance with undertakings given by the New South Wales Crime Commission ('the Commission') to His Honour Justice Hamill on 28 October 2016 - the matters contained herein.
The Commission holds transcripts of evidence given to the Commission by certain witnesses ('the transcripts') in relation to the shooting of Joseph Antoun (the subject of these proceedings), which transcripts were subject to production to the Court pursuant to a certificate issued to the Commission by His Honour under subsection 45 (4) Crime Commission Act 2012 (`the CC Act') on 24 October 2016. His Honour has considered the transcripts over the past week, in closed court proceedings.
The transcripts disclose several possible motives for the shooting of Joseph Antoun. The transcripts disclose that:
…
The transcripts do not disclose any information as to matters relevant to the provenance of the gun, which was identified by Mr John Stratton SC on 26 October 2016 as being one basis for seeking access to the transcripts (being in support of his argument that the Court should make a determination that the interests of justice require the Court to make the transcripts available to the accused's legal practitioners and to the prosecutor, pursuant to subsection 45 (5) of the CC Act). The reference to this submission made by Mr Stratton SC can be located in the partially Confidential Extract of Transcript dated 26 October 2016 at pages 2 line 25 (at which time in the proceedings, both the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Stratton were present).
The transcripts do not disclose the witnesses giving any evidence of any person, other than Les Elias, being a participant in the actual arranging of the shooting of Joseph Antoun.
I enclose, in accordance with His Honour's request, a copy of media articles and blogs that were made an exhibit before His Honour on 28 October 2016.
The Commission consents to the disclosure of this letter to the accused in this trial.
In accordance with a request of His Honour, a copy of this letter will be provided by the Crown Solicitor to His Honour's Associate."
In view of that disclosure, and given the countervailing considerations referred to above, I have concluded at this stage that the interests of justice do not require that the evidence that has been produced pursuant to s 45(4) should be made available to the accused, their legal representatives and to the prosecutor. In reaching that conclusion, I have adopted the approach to the legislation that I explained in R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11). In respect of the expression "if the interest of justice so require", I apply the provision in the way explained at [16] to [23] in R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11).
While acknowledging that this may be a matter that could be revisited should circumstances change, it is for those reasons that I decline to make an order under s 45(5) for the evidence produced under s 45(4) to be made available to the accused, their legal representatives and to the prosecutor.
[2]
Endnotes
Confidential Crime Commission Transcript, p 66-67, 90-91.
For a consideration of relevant factors, see R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11) at [16] - [32].
Cf R v Qaumi & Ors (No 11) at [28].
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 13 December 2016