Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Ronen

Regina v Ronen

Case [2004] NSWSC 1298 30 September 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1298

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: I do not consider that there is the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused

CATCHWORDS: Unfavourable witness - application under s 38 Evidence Act - The changing nature of accounting evidence - - Prejudice and collateral disadvantage

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act

CASES CITED: R v Fowler (2000) NSWCCA 142 at para 120
Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 712
Gilbert Adam 47 NSWLR 267
Regina v Parkes (2003) NSWCCA 12 at 70
R v Le (2002) 54 NSWLR 474 at 481
R v White (NSWCCA 64 at 62-66)
R v Pantoja (unreported) NSWCCA 5 November 1998)
Regina v Hogan (2001) NSWCCA 297

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

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

COUNSEL: Mr T. Game SC; Ms S McNaughton - Crown
Mr R. Richter QC; Mr Rosenbaum - Accuded Ida Ronen
Mr I. Hill QC; Mr E. Power - Nitzan Ronen
Mr R. Van de Wiel QC; Mr P. Jones - Izhar Ronen

SOLICITORS: Ms P. Musgrave - Cth DPP
Watsons Solicitors - Accused

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

THURSDAY 30 September 2004

70222/03 - REGINA v Ida RONEN
70032/03 - REGINA v Nitzan RONEN
70223/03 - REGINA v Izhar RONEN

JUDGMENT - On application under s 38 by Crown Prosecutor – see page 5112 of the transcript

1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the Court an application under s 38 of the Evidence Act. The application is by the Crown and it is for leave to ask the witness, Mr Ian Geller, about a number of topics as though the Crown were cross-examining the witness.

2 Secondly, there is a related application for further leave of the Court to enable the Crown in going about that questioning, if it be permitted, to raise matters of credit, or, more precisely as s 38(3) states, about matters relevant only to the witness's credibility.

3 The topics have been identified by the Crown. There are a considerable number of them, although it is fair to say that the main topic relates to a matter that has played a not insignificant part to date in the evidence. I shall describe this topic as Mr Geller's role in the reallocation of loans to purchases in the books of On Fovo and Ronen Young Fashion and the corresponding reclassification of loans to sales in the books of Dolina Enterprises and Dolina Fashion Group. But, as I say, there were a very considerable number of other topics which were canvassed as well.

4 The Crown's application is generally made on the basis that it is entitled, according to its submission to question Mr Geller about matters referred to in s 38 1(a) and 38 1(c) of the Evidence Act

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 [2004] NSWSC 1298
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1298
Decision Date: 30 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the High Court, the respondent was convicted of multiple counts of tax fraud. The conviction hinged upon the credibility of the accounting evidence presented. The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accountant who had initially refused to testify against the respondent, but later provided evidence. The respondent applied under section 38 of the Evidence Act to have this evidence excluded due to unreliability. The appeal challenged the trial judge's decision to allow the evidence.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence from an unfavourable witness and the impact of the changing nature of accounting evidence. The respondent argued that the accountant's testimony was unreliable because of their initial refusal to testify against the respondent, and because accounting evidence was now subject to complex and evolving standards. The appeal questioned whether the trial judge correctly assessed the prejudice and collateral disadvantage to the respondent by admitting this evidence.

The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in admitting the evidence. The unreliability of the witness did not render the evidence inadmissible, as the judge had considered the witness's credibility and the context in which the evidence was given. The court also held that while accounting evidence was subject to change, this did not automatically disqualify it from being reliable or relevant. The prejudice and collateral disadvantage to the respondent were not such as to warrant exclusion of the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the trial judge's assessment of the evidence was sound. The court emphasised the importance of considering the overall context and the reliability of the evidence, rather than focusing on isolated aspects such as the witness's prior refusal to testify. The decision underscored the need for a balanced approach to the admission of accounting evidence, recognising its complexity while ensuring its relevance and reliability.

Orders