Legal Research
Cases
R v Ronen

R v Ronen

Case [2004] NSWCCA 176 11 June 2004

Jurisdiction

Constitutional Validity

Right to Fair Trial

Statutory Interpretation

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
211 FLR 320

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina (Cth) v Ronen; Regina (Cth) v Ronen; Regina (Cth) v Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 176

HEARING DATE(S): 21/05/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Grove J at 102; Howie J at 112

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Whether the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) prohibits the names and occupations of potential jurors in a criminal trial from being disclosed to the accused - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Whether statute prohibiting the supply to an accused in a criminal trial of the names and occupations of potential jurors inconsistent with s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution - Whether accused has a right to the names and occupations of jurors as part of the right of challenge - Whether any such right has existed in England and New South Wales - Variability of the right of peremptory challenge - Importance of the integrity of trial by jury.

LEGISLATION CITED: Jury Act 1912 (NSW), s 55
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 28(1), 28(3), 29, 37, 38(7), 41, 42, 43, 44, 47A, 48, 52, 67A, 68
Jury Amendment Act 1997 (NSW)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth), s 80
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK), s 118(1)
Juries Act 2000 (Vic), s 39
Juries Act 1957 (WA), s 38
Juries Act 1967 (ACT), s 34
Juries Act (NT), s 44
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 42
Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 61
Jury Act 1899 (Tas), s 54
Juries Act 1825 (UK), s 29
Juries Act 1974 (UK), s 12(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 86A, 86(2)
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No 3) Act 1988 (NSW), sched 12, cl (3)

CASES CITED: Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171
Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278
Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541
Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272
Hill v Yates (1810) 12 East 229
Johns (Roger) v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 409
Katsuno v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 40
Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264
Ng v The Queen (2003) 77 ALJR 967
R v Baum (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 401
R v Cripps (1885) 1 WN (NSW) 112
R v Cuffey (1848) 7 St Tr (NS) 467
R v Dowling (1849) 7 St Tr (NS) 381
R v Mellor (1858) 1 Dearsley & Bell 468
R v Sherratt [1991] 1 SCR 509
R v Wakefield [1918] 1 KB 216
The Case of a Juryman (1810) 12 East 231

PARTIES :
60177/04
Ida Ronen (Appellant)
Regina (Cth) (Respondent)
60178/04
Izhar Ronen (Appellant)
Regina (Cth) (Respondent)
60179/04
Nitzan Ronen (Appellant)
Regina (Cth) (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60177/04; 60178/04; 60179/04

COUNSEL: 60177/04; 60178/04; 60179/04
Appellant: (Ida Ronen) R Richter QC/N Rosenbaum
Appellant: (Izhar Ronen) R Van de Wiel QC/P Jones
Appellant: (Nitzan Ronen) I Hill QC/E Power
Crown (Cth): D Hammerschlag SC/S M McNaughton
Attorney General for NSW Intervening: R Pepper

SOLICITORS: 60177/04; 60178/04; 60179/04
Appellant: (Ida…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ronen

Details

AGLC: R v Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 176
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 176
Decision Date: 11 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ronen involved the defendant who challenged the constitutionality of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) on the grounds that it violated his right under the Commonwealth Constitution to know the names and occupations of potential jurors. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the extent of the right to challenge jurors and whether the statutory prohibition on disclosing juror information was consistent with constitutional provisions.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) contravened the right to a fair trial guaranteed by section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution, and if the accused had a right to the names and occupations of jurors as part of the right of challenge. The Court had to consider the historical context and evolution of the right of peremptory challenge, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury system. It was necessary to examine whether any such right existed in English law and if it had been adopted in New South Wales.

The Court concluded that the statutory prohibition on disclosing juror information to the accused was not inconsistent with the Commonwealth Constitution. The right to a fair trial did not encompass a right to know the names and occupations of potential jurors. The Court found that the right of challenge was not absolute and had varied over time. Additionally, the integrity of the trial by jury was not compromised by the withholding of juror information, as the anonymity of jurors served to protect them from external influences and ensure impartiality. The Court's decision upheld the statutory scheme and rejected the defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW).

The Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, affirming that the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) was consistent with the Commonwealth Constitution. The final orders of the Court were that the defendant's appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were upheld.

Orders