Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1304

Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1304

The Court held that the proposed formulation of the central ingredients should not be altered. The word "object" was ambiguous because it could confuse the conspirators' purpose with the consequence or outcome of the conspiracy. In a case where the alleged agreement was inchoate, unstated and secret, it was more accurate and appropriate to state the ingredients using language approved by the High Court and New South Wales appellate courts, including deprivation or risk of deprivation and making collection of tax more difficult. The Crown did not have to prove the precise quantum of lost revenue or that a precise amount had been lost.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Conspiracy to Defraud / Trial Ruling on Directions to the Jury Concerning the Elements of Conspiracy to Defraud
Outcome
The Court declined to accede to Mr Richter QC's requests to change the proposed statement of the essential ingredients of conspiracy to defraud, while leaving open the possibility of a later comment or direction concerning quantum.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Defraud' 'elements of the Offence' 'jury Directions' 'concealment of Income' 'income Tax']
['criminal Law' 'taxation'] ['conspiracy to Defraud' 'elements of the Offence' 'jury Directions' 'concealment of Income' 'income Tax']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Conspiracy to Defraud / Trial Ruling on Directions to the Jury Concerning the Elements of Conspiracy to Defraud

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed jury direction should describe the alleged agreement as one which had as its outcome or incidental to its outcome the depriving of the Commissioner of Taxation of income tax, or the risk of that deprivation, rather than as an agreement which had deprivation as its object.' 'Whether references to making collection of tax more difficult should be omitted from the statement of the ingredients of conspiracy to defraud.' 'Whether the jury should be directed or given a comment about quantum if it concluded there was only an insignificant deficiency in revenue compared with the Crown evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the proposed formulation of the central ingredients should not be altered. The word "object" was ambiguous because it could confuse the conspirators' purpose with the consequence or outcome of the conspiracy. In a case where the alleged agreement was inchoate, unstated and secret, it was more accurate and appropriate to state the ingredients using language approved by the High Court and New South Wales appellate courts, including deprivation or risk of deprivation and making collection of tax more difficult. The Crown did not have to prove the precise quantum of lost revenue or that a precise amount had been lost.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to accede to Mr Richter QC's requests to change the proposed statement of the essential ingredients of conspiracy to defraud, while leaving open the possibility of a later comment or direction concerning quantum.

Orders

  • []