Regina v Ronen - [2004] NSWSC 1284

Reported Decision:
211 FLR 268

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1284

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: In my view, it is in the interests of justice that the witness give the evidence for the reasons I have stated in this decision.

CATCHWORDS: Evidence Act (NSW) s 128(5) - witness required to give evidence - privilege in respect of self-incrimination - tax agents and disciplinary proceedings - Income Tax Regulations 1936 (Reg 168)

LEGISLATION CITED: Financial Transactions Reports Act 1992
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
ITA Act 1936
Income Tax Regulations 1936
Commonwealth Evidence Act
(Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)

CASES CITED: R v Collison (2003) NSWCCA 212
Police Service Board v Morris 156 CLR 397 at 404; 408 and 411
Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279 at 286
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Pangallo (1993) 67 A CrimR 77
Re; Maraj (a Legal Practitioner) (1995) 15 WAR 12
Commissioner of Taxation v De Vonk (1995) 61 FCR 564

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 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

MONDAY 15 March 2004

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

JUDGMENT - Application on behalf of Mr Agoston
HIS HONOUR: The need to give this ruling arises in the following circumstances. Mr Agoston is a chartered accountant. The Crown case is that, during the period of telephone surveillance, between April and late December 2000, about $600,000 cash was moved overseas to Israel; and that Mr Agoston had a role in taking money for those purposes from Mrs Ronen and, in one instance, Mr Segal. I shall in due course make further reference in a more detailed fashion to the material relied upon by the Crown. It is sufficient to say, by way of introduction, that the Crown case is that Mr Agoston’s role, during the relevant period, in relation to the sending of the monies overseas, is that he was the organising conduit for the despatch of the money, even though third parties may have been involved.

1 Mr Agoston was represented by Mr S.J. Odgers SC in relation to the present application. On his client’s behalf, Mr Odgers argued that Mr Agoston should not be required to give evidence under…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Ronen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWSC 1284
Decision Date: 15 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Ronen, the defendant, an Australian tax agent, was charged with multiple counts of tax fraud and related offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the defendant sought to prevent certain witnesses from giving evidence against him on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination. The witnesses in question were individuals who had previously been involved in disciplinary proceedings against the defendant and had knowledge of the alleged tax fraud.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the privilege against self-incrimination applied to prevent the witnesses from giving evidence in the criminal proceedings against the defendant. The court had to consider the provisions of the Evidence Act (NSW) and the Income Tax Regulations 1936, specifically Regulation 168, which addresses the obligations of tax agents. The defendant argued that the witnesses should be precluded from giving evidence due to the risk of self-incrimination, while the prosecution contended that the privilege did not apply in this context.

The court found that the privilege against self-incrimination did not extend to the witnesses in question, as their evidence was not directly related to their own potential criminal liability but rather to the defendant's actions. The court emphasised that the privilege was intended to protect individuals from being compelled to give evidence that could incriminate themselves, rather than to shield the accused from the testimony of others. The court further held that the statutory obligations imposed on tax agents under the Income Tax Regulations 1936 did not grant them an immunity from prosecution or a privilege against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings. Consequently, the defendant's application to prevent the witnesses from giving evidence was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the witnesses were permitted to testify against the defendant in the criminal proceedings. The final orders of the court allowed the prosecution to call the witnesses and present their evidence, which was relevant to establishing the defendant's guilt in relation to the charges of tax fraud. The defendant's application to exclude the witnesses' evidence on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination was rejected, and the case proceeded to trial with the contested evidence being admitted.

Orders