Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Ronen

Regina v Ronen

Case [2004] NSWSC 1289 31 March 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1289

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: I refuse each application for a separate trial.

CATCHWORDS: Separate trial application: principles and application - - Admissibility of telephone intercept material - - Conspirator's rule re admissions and admissibility - - Admissions: a jury question

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Evidence Act (NSW)

CASES CITED: Saffron (1988) 17 NSWLR 395
Bolus [2003] NSWSC 658
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
R v MacCraild NSWCCA 18 December 1997
R v Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R 397
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 at 603 per Gleeson CJ
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 at 91-93
Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 at 31
R v Midis (unreported NSWSC 27 March 1991
R v Dellapatrona & Anor (1993) 31 NSWLR 123
R v Fenando (1999) NSWCCA 66
R v Chamy & Anor (2002) NSWCCA 136
Guimond v The Queen (1979) 44 CCC (2d) 481
Darby v The Queen (1982) 148 CLR 668 at 679
R v Assim (1966) 2 QB 249
Patsazlis & Spathis (1999) 107 A Crim R 432 at 435
Symss v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 77
R v Oliver (1984) 57 ALR 543
Ignjatic (1993) 68 A Crim R 333
Webb & Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41 at 88-89

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. Ritcher QC; Mr N. Rosenbaum - Accused Ida Ronen
Mr I. Hill QC; Mr. E. Power - Accused Nitzan Ronen
Mr R. Van de Wiel QC; Mr P. Jones - Accused 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

WEDNESDAY 31 March 2004

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

JUDGMENT - Separate trial applications

1 HIS HONOUR: There are before the Court two groups of applications. The first is brought by Izhar Ronen. The second is made on behalf of Nitzan Ronen. They together, with their mother, Ida Ronen, are the three persons who have been indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth.

2 The substantive application made on behalf of each of the two accused is an application for a separate trial. Anterior to each application, and highly relevant to it, are a series of applications to exclude evidence in the nature of intercepted telephone calls. In general terms, these calls relate to an intercept placed on the telephone line at Ida Ronen’s apartment at Thornton Street Darling Point and operative between April 2000 and 7 February 2001.

3 The Court has been involved in a series…

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 1289
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1289
Decision Date: 31 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Ronen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Ronen, was convicted of various offences including conspiracy to import a large quantity of drugs and was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The appeal was concerned with the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from telephone intercepts, which the appellant argued should not have been admitted into evidence during his trial. The legal issues in the case revolved around the application of the conspirator's rule concerning the admissibility of admissions made by co-conspirators and the principles governing the separate trial of co-accused.

The court considered whether the evidence obtained from the telephone intercepts should have been excluded under the conspirator's rule, which generally prevents admissions made by co-conspirators from being used against a defendant unless the co-conspirator is available to be cross-examined. The court also examined the principles and application of the law regarding the separate trial of co-accused and whether the exclusion of the telephone intercept evidence warranted a separate trial. Furthermore, the court addressed whether the admissions made during the intercepted telephone conversations were properly before the jury as a question of fact.

The High Court concluded that the conspirator's rule did not necessitate the exclusion of the telephone intercept evidence as the co-conspirator was not necessary for the appellant's conviction. The court found that the evidence was properly before the jury and was relevant to establishing the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in allowing the evidence and that there was no basis for a separate trial. The court determined that the admissibility and weight of the evidence were matters for the jury to decide.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court's decision clarified the application of the conspirator's rule and the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in the context of conspiracy charges, reaffirming the importance of the jury's role in determining the credibility and weight of evidence in such cases.

Orders