Legal Research
Cases
R v Ronen

R v Ronen

Case [2004] NSWCCA 67 22 March 2004

Corporate Law & Governance

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
62 NSWLR 707

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v RONEN & ORS [2004] NSWCCA 67

HEARING DATE(S): 11 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 91; Kirby J at 116

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Whether the proper officer of a company can claim privilege against self-incrimination where a subpoena duces tecum is served on the corporation - meaning of "proper officer" - whether the "proper office" requires the express authority of the company to answer the subpoena - whether it is oppressive on the accused or an abuse of process for a corporation to comply with a subpoena where the accused is the sole director and secretary of the corporation - whether the accused is being asked to assist in the preparation of the Crown case - whether the process of gathering documents is an exercise of executive or judicial power.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Supreme Court Rules 1970

CASES CITED: AG v North Metropolitan Tramways Co (1892) 3 Ch 70
Attorney General of Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corp Ltd [1990] 2 All ER 216
Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50
Boilermakers Case (1956) 94 CLR 254
BPTC Limited (in liq) (1993) 29 NSWLR 713
Braswell v United States 487 US 99 (1988)
Carter v Northmore Hale Davey & Leake (195) 183 CLR 121
Commercial Bank of Australia v Whinfield (120) CLR 225
Danieletto v Kherra (1995) 35 NSWLR 684
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285
Eccles & Co v Louisville and Nashville Railway Company (1912) 1 KB 135
Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Limited (1999) 178 CLR 477
In re Grand Jury Subpoenas dated October 22 November 1991 and November 1 1991 959 F.2d 1158 (2d Cl C1992)
In re Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum 769 F 2d 52 (1985)
Klein v Bell (195) 2 DLR 513
MacDonald v Australian Securities Commission (No 2) (1994) 48 FCR 210
Mosser v PGH Ceramics [1964] 82 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 147
Old Welshman's Reef Gold Mining Co v Welshman's Gold Mining Co (1884) 14 VLR 253
Penn-Texas Corporation v Mural Anstalt (1964) 2 QB 647
Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v Thornton (1953) 87 CLR 144
R v Scott (1990) 20 NSWLR 72
R v Soma (2003) 212 CLR 299
Re Lindsay Toole & Co (Wool) Pty Ltd (1966) 2 NSWLR 120
Registrar of the Supreme Court, Equity Dividion v McPherson [1980] 1 NSWLR 688
Rochfort v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 153 CLR 134
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Smith Kline & French Laboratoires Ltd v Inter-Continental Pharmaceutical (Australia) Pty Ltd (1969) 43 ALJR 308
South Pacific Hotel Services Inc v Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation Ltd (1984) 1 NSWLR 711
Tannetta Walker & Co v Newport Duck Co (1890) 6 TLR 326
The Lady Gwendolen (1965) P 294
The Queen v Davison (1954) 90 CLR 353
Trade Practices Commission v…

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 67
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 67
Decision Date: 22 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ronen, the defendant was the sole director and secretary of a company that was served with a subpoena duces tecum. The defendant sought to challenge the subpoena on the grounds that it was oppressive and an abuse of process for the corporation to comply with the subpoena as it would require the defendant to incriminate himself. The defendant argued that as the proper officer of the company, he had the right to claim privilege against self-incrimination, and that the proper officer required the express authority of the company to answer the subpoena. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proper officer of a company could claim privilege against self-incrimination where a subpoena duces tecum was served on the corporation, what was meant by "proper officer," whether the "proper officer" required the express authority of the company to answer the subpoena, whether it was oppressive on the accused or an abuse of process for a corporation to comply with a subpoena where the accused was the sole director and secretary of the corporation, and whether the accused was being asked to assist in the preparation of the Crown case. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the process of gathering documents was an exercise of executive or judicial power.

The court held that the proper officer of a company could claim privilege against self-incrimination where a subpoena duces tecum was served on the corporation. The court found that the proper officer was not necessarily the sole director and secretary of the corporation but rather the person with the authority to act on behalf of the corporation in legal matters. The court also held that the proper officer did not require the express authority of the company to answer the subpoena. The court found that it was oppressive on the accused and an abuse of process for a corporation to comply with a subpoena where the accused was the sole director and secretary of the corporation. The court held that the process of gathering documents was an exercise of judicial power, and the accused was not being asked to assist in the preparation of the Crown case.

The court quashed the subpoena and made an order that the corporation was not required to comply with it. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be paid by the Crown.

Orders