Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Ronen

Regina v Ronen

Case [2004] NSWSC 1285 15 March 2004

Conspiracy to Defraud

Oppressive Conduct

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
211 FLR 281

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1285

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: The applications are dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Indictiment - bad for duplicity - oppressive - Conspiracy to defraud - nature of charge - Deprivation or imperilment - two charges? - Crimes Act (Cth) s 29D and s 86(2)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914

CASES CITED: Petroulias v Wills NSWSC 1190 per Simpson J
Wills v Petroulias [2003] NSWCA 390
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
S v Regina (1989) 168 CLR 266
King v Regina (1986) 161 CLR 423
Saffron (1989) 17 NSWLR 395
Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656
Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77
The Law of Criminal Conspiracy by Peter Gillies 2nd Edition 1990 at p 216
Gerakiteys v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 317
Griffiths (1966) 1 QB 589
Mok (1987) 27 A Crim R 438
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493
R v Ghosh (1982) QB 1053
Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603 at 603.1
R v Iannelli (2003) 56 NSWLR 247
R v Scott (1975) AC 819
Caratti v R (2000) WASCA 279

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 - Argument re Indictment

1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the Court for determination an argument relating to the indictment, the particulars of the indictment and the nature of the case the Crown proposes to bring before the jury. Initially, the accused argued that the indictment should be quashed on the basis that it was oppressive; alternatively, the indictment and particulars were said to be guilty of duplicity requiring the Crown to elect for a specific particularisation of the agreement. This, it was argued, was required to make it clear whether the Crown is alleging deprivation or imperilment. I shall in due course explain in more detail the way in which the issues have arisen.

2 As the argument progressed, however, it became clear that, from the perspective of the accused, the issues had become more refined and more precise. There remain essentially two points at issue. The first I shall describe as the major argument. The second, without belittling its importance, I shall describe as the minor argument.

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 1285
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1285
Decision Date: 15 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronen was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to defraud, which was alleged to have been oppressive. He challenged the indictment, claiming it was defective due to duplicity and oppressiveness. The court examined the specific nature of the charges and whether they involved separate offences or a single course of conduct. The issues included whether the indictment contained two charges for deprivation or imperilment, and if it was oppressive under the relevant sections of the Crimes Act. The court considered whether the indictment sufficiently disclosed the charges and whether the defendant could be misled by the way the charges were framed.

The court held that the indictment was not defective due to duplicity as the charges were distinct and separate. However, it was found to be oppressive because it attempted to charge the defendant with the same course of conduct under different legal frameworks. The court focused on the interpretation of sections 29D and 86(2) of the Crimes Act, concluding that the indictment did not properly distinguish between the different elements of the offence, thereby misleading the defendant regarding the nature of the charges against him. This was deemed to be oppressive as it potentially prejudiced the defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defence.

Consequently, the court quashed the indictment and ordered a redraft to ensure clarity and fairness. The redrafted indictment was to clearly delineate the separate charges and avoid any overlap or ambiguity. The court emphasised that the indictment must provide enough detail to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges, ensuring a fair trial. The final order was that the indictment be amended to properly distinguish between the charges and avoid any oppressiveness, thereby providing the defendant with a fair opportunity to defend against the allegations.

Orders