Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1297

Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1297

Section 87(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 applies to the statements of Mr Ian Geller, as they were made by a person with authority to act for the accused concerning matters within the scope of that authority. There is no requirement that the agent have actual or implied 'speaking authority,' nor does it matter that the representation was made after the accused was charged and indicated a desire to remain silent. The representations are admissible as admissions and are not excluded by s 137 Evidence Act.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Ida Ronen; Accused: Nitzan Ronen; Accused: Izhar Ronen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial (evidentiary Objection)
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused; representations admitted; jury not discharged
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Admissions, Hearsay Exceptions, Vicarious Admissions
Evidence Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Admissions Hearsay Exceptions Vicarious Admissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ida Ronen

Accused

Nitzan Ronen

Accused

Izhar Ronen

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial (evidentiary Objection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of Mr Ian Geller dated 10 April 2001 is admissible under s 87(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 as a vicarious admission by the accused
  2. 2 Whether the statement should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 for unfair prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Section 87(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 applies to the statements of Mr Ian Geller, as they were made by a person with authority to act for the accused concerning matters within the scope of that authority. There is no requirement that the agent have actual or implied 'speaking authority,' nor does it matter that the representation was made after the accused was charged and indicated a desire to remain silent. The representations are admissible as admissions and are not excluded by s 137 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused; representations admitted; jury not discharged

Orders

  • The application to discharge the jury and exclude the statement of Ian Geller dated 10 April 2001 is refused.
  • The representations in Mr Ian Geller's statement are admitted as evidence.