Citation: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2005] NSWSC 322
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division (Criminal List)
Date: 28 January 2005
Judge(s): Whealy J
Background
Three offenders, two related by name and one further associated individual, were convicted by a jury on two counts each in a Commonwealth fraud indictment. The charges related to a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth by concealing the true income of two retail businesses over an extended period. The Crown alleged the offenders had maintained a deliberate agreement to hide business income for personal and commercial benefit across many years.
Following the jury's verdicts, each offender applied for bail pending the sentencing proceedings. The Crown opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the offences and arguing there was a real risk the offenders would not attend for sentencing.
Legal Issues
- Whether bail should be granted to convicted offenders pending sentencing for serious Commonwealth fraud offences
- Whether the likelihood of a custodial sentence supported a finding of flight risk
- Whether each offender's prior compliance with court attendance obligations was sufficient to warrant bail
Decision
Whealy J observed that the jury's verdicts fundamentally changed the position of each offender. The presumption of innocence no longer applied; in its place stood a finding of guilt on each count. The jury, by its verdicts, was taken to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement among the offenders was to conceal the income of the relevant taxpayers, not to distribute proceeds of legitimate consignment sales as the defence had suggested.
His Honour accepted that submissions on the precise penalties remained to be heard, including an argument about the correct application of the Criminal Code to the maximum penalty provisions. However, he concluded that this did not diminish the seriousness of the charges. Whether measured by the Crown's preferred maximum penalties or those advanced by defence counsel, the penalties reflected offences that were neither trivial nor insignificant.
The defence submitted that each offender had consistently honoured their attendance obligations throughout the lengthy proceedings. His Honour acknowledged those submissions and gave them full consideration. Nonetheless, he found that nothing advanced on behalf of any of the offenders warranted the grant of bail at this stage.
Orders Made
- Bail refused for each of the three offenders
- Each offender remanded in custody until Monday 7 March 2005
Key Takeaways
- A jury verdict of guilty removes the presumption of innocence and places convicted offenders in a materially different position when applying for bail pending sentence.
- Refusing bail post-conviction, Whealy J treated the jury's findings as determinative of the essential factual issues, including the nature and purpose of the alleged agreement between the offenders.
- The existence of unresolved sentencing arguments, including disputes about the applicable maximum penalty under the Criminal Code, did not diminish the assessed seriousness of the underlying charges for bail purposes.
- Prior compliance with court attendance obligations, while a relevant consideration, was not sufficient by itself to overcome the factors weighing against bail where serious white-collar offences had resulted in conviction.
- The Supreme Court treated the long-running and deliberate nature of the income concealment, and the personal benefits derived from it, as relevant to characterising the offending as serious, even before formal sentencing submissions were heard.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Section 86A of the relevant Commonwealth legislation (conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, applying to conduct before 14 September 1994)
- Section 86 of the relevant Commonwealth legislation
- Criminal Code (Commonwealth)
Note: No cases were cited in the text of the judgment. The specific Commonwealth Act containing ss 86 and 86A is not named in the judgment as provided, though the provisions referenced are consistent with the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).