Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Ronen

Regina v Ronen

Case [2005] NSWSC 991 7 October 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Ronen & Ors [2005] NSWSC 991

HEARING DATE(S): 26/09/05, 27/09/05, 28/09/05, 05/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

7 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Whealy J at 1

DECISION:
Ida Ronen - sentenced on structuring charge to imprisonment for 8 months commening on 28 January 2005 and expiring on 27 September 2005. On the 1st charge in the indictment sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years commencing on 28 January 2005 expiring on 27 Januaury 2010. On the 2nd charge on the indictment sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years 6 months commencing on 28 January 2007 and expiring on 27 July 2013. In relation to all 3 offences there is a single non-parole period of 4 years 6 months commencing on 28 January 2005 and expiring on 27 July 2009.; Nitzan and Izar Ronen - in relation to the 1st charge sentenced to 5 years commencing on 28 January 2005 expiring on 27 July 2010. In relation to 2nd charge sentenced to 6 years 6 months commencing on 28 Januaury 2007 expiring on 27 July 2013. There is a single non-parole period in respect of both sentences commencing 28 January 2005 expiring on 27 July 2010.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995
Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999
Criminal Code Amendment Act (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000
Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Commonwealth)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Financial Transaction Report Act
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936

CASES CITED:
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368
Siganto (1998) 194 CLR 656 at 662
Regina v Vo & Tran (District Court of New South Wales (unreported) 25 June 2004)
R v O'Connor [2002] 129 A Crim R 505 at 537
R v Cappadona [2001 122 A Crim R 52
R v Hamman (CCA (NSW) unreported, 1 December 1998)
Rich & Anor v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2004] 209 ALR 271
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1 at [16]
R v Rivkin [2003] NSWSC 447 at [44]
Saffron v R (unreported CCA 28 October 1988)
Ryan v R [2001] 206 CLR 267
R v El Rashid per Gleeson CJ at page 3 NSWCCA unreported 7 April 1995)
R v Maslen & Shaw (1995) 79 A Crim R 199 per Hunt CJ at CL at 209
R v Hinton [2002] 134 A Crim R 286
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 624
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44
Pritchard (1999) 197 A Crim R 88 at 93
Stringer (2000) 116 A Crim R 198 at 222
Annechini (unreported) NSWCCA 24 April 1996 per Gleeson CJ
Bielaczek (unreported) NSWSC 1 March 1992 per Badgery-Parker J
White (unreported) NSWCCA 25 July 1991
Crump (unreported) NSWCCA 30 May 1994

PARTIES:
Regina v Nitzan Ronen
Regina v Ida Ronen
Regina v Izhar Ronen

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 70032/03; 70222/03; 70223/03

COUNSEL:
Mr T. Game SC; Ms S. McNaughton - Crown
Ms E.…

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 Regina v Ronen

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ronen [2005] NSWSC 991
Case: [2005] NSWSC 991
Decision Date: 7 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Ronen, Ida Ronen, Nitzan Ronen and Izhar Ronen were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. The maximum penalty applicable to the offences was found to be 20 years imprisonment, rather than the 10 years suggested by the offenders. The court took into account the principle of fairness and justice, and the parliament's expressed attitude towards the maximum penalty. The sentences imposed on the offenders reflected the objective seriousness of the offences, the subjective circumstances of the offenders, and the general principles in relation to revenue fraud. The court considered the offenders' contrition and the Terms of Settlement reached with the Taxation Commissioner. The final sentences imposed were imprisonment terms of eight and a half years for Nitzan Ronen and Izhar Ronen, and eight years for Ida Ronen, with non-parole periods of five years and six months, and four years and six months, respectively.

Orders