Regina v Ronen & Ors [2005] NSWSC 322

New South Wales Supreme Court

Regina v Ronen & Ors [2005] NSWSC 322 CITATION : This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

JUDGMENT DATE : 28 January 2005

JUDGMENT OF : Whealy J at 1

DECISION : Bail is refused and the offenders are each remanded in custody until Monday 7 March 2005

CATCHWORDS : Bail - refusal - after conviction for serious "white collar" crime

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

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

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

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

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

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

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 28 January 2005

2003/70222 - REGINA v Ida RONEN 2003/70032 - REGINA v Nitzan RONEN 2003/70223 - REGINA v Izhar RONEN

JUDGMENT - Re application for bail pending sentence proceedings; see p 1 of proceedings upon conviction

1 HIS HONOUR: The offenders have each been found guilty of the two charges in the indictment. The Crown has opposed the grant of bail and has provided me with written submissions as set out in MFI 238. The Crown has argued that the offenders face a very strong likelihood that a custodial sentence will be imposed. 2 In that regard the Crown has taken me to the maximum penalty for the charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth under s 86A which covers the period up to 14 September 1994 and this section and the maximum penalty under s 86. 3 Secondly, the Crown has argued that the situation of each offender is such that the Court might well take the view that there is a risk that he or she will not attend for the purposes of the sentencing hearing. 4 In relation to that second group of submissions, Senior Counsel for each offender has argued that there is a history that shows that each has to date respected the obligation to attend Court and that this has covered a substantial period of time. 5 As I understand the situation, these charges do carry substantial maximum custodial penalties. Those penalties are as set out in the Crown's document, although it appears an argument may be addressed as to the correct approach by the sentencing Court to the question of maximum penalty and penalty to be imposed, having regard to the provisions of the Criminal Code. No submissions have been made to me at this stage, and I do not profess to have any view on that matter, even on a preliminary reading of the current provisions of the Criminal Code. 6 I consider that I can do no more than note that there will be submissions in relation to that aspect of the matter. In my view, that prospect does not alter the fact that the charges are serious charges. This is so whether one has regard to the maximum penalties, set out by the Crown in its written submissions or by reference to the maximum penalty mentioned by Mr Richter in his submission. In either case, the maximum penalties reflect the seriousness of the charges in respect of which each offender has been found guilty. 7 Now in my view, although submissions on the detailed matters relating to penalty remain to be heard and considered, the verdict of the jury must mean that it has been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the essential ingredients of the offences in each count. Further, the jury must be taken to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the Crown's circumstantial case and that the Crown has eliminated any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence. This means, in practical terms, that on the issues in this trial, the Crown has eliminated any reasonable possibility that the true nature of the agreement between the offenders was that it may have been one relating to the distribution of the proceeds of consignment sales in the retail shops consistent with its verdicts, the jury must be taken to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement between the offenders was one to conceal, during the relevant periods, the income of On Fovo Pty Limited and Ida Ronen trading as Ronen Young Fashion. 8 In view of the jury's verdicts, the offenders now stand in a very different position than that which they occupied prior to verdict. There is no longer a presumption of innocence; to the contrary, there is a finding of guilt in relation to each offender on each count in the indictment. 9 It will be necessary for me, of course, to make factual findings once I have heard the submissions on penalty. But it is clear, having regard to the jury's verdict, that, even with no more than a basic appreciation of the evidence, these three people have been involved in a longstanding and deliberate agreement to conceal the true income of the relevant taxpayers. They have reaped the benefits of that concealment for personal and business purposes over many years. Whatever be the quantum of the fraud involved, it is clear that on any view of it is neither trivial nor insignificant. 10 I have taken into account the arguments advanced by the Crown and I have given full consideration to the submissions by Senior Counsel for each of the offenders. In my view, nothing has been advanced that would warrant the grant of bail for the offenders. 11 Bail is refused and the offenders are each remanded in custody until Monday 7 March 2005.