Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1293

Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1293

The court ruled that Mrs Ronen was adequately cautioned at the relevant time and given repeated opportunity to contact a solicitor. Her statements indicating a desire to talk to her solicitor were expressions of the right to silence rather than requests for deferral. Federal Agent Moulds acted appropriately and did not breach s 23G or s 23F of the Crimes Act. The evidence was not obtained improperly or unfairly, was sufficiently probative, and its admission did not pose undue prejudice. Thus, the contested evidence may be admitted, but certain passages reflecting exercise of the right to silence are to be excluded unless Mrs Ronen wishes them to remain.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Contested evidence mostly admissible; specific passages reflecting right to silence excluded unless Mrs Ronen elects otherwise
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'right to Silence' 'probative Value' 'exclusionary Discretion' 'caution' 'communication With Legal Practitioner' 'public Policy Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'right to Silence' 'probative Value' 'exclusionary Discretion' 'caution' 'communication With Legal Practitioner' 'public Policy Discretion']

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 / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the admissions made by Mrs Ronen during the execution of the search warrant are admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether there was a breach of s 23G or s 23F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in relation to communication with a legal practitioner and cautioning' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under ss 135, 137, 138, or 90 of the Evidence Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that Mrs Ronen was adequately cautioned at the relevant time and given repeated opportunity to contact a solicitor. Her statements indicating a desire to talk to her solicitor were expressions of the right to silence rather than requests for deferral. Federal Agent Moulds acted appropriately and did not breach s 23G or s 23F of the Crimes Act. The evidence was not obtained improperly or unfairly, was sufficiently probative, and its admission did not pose undue prejudice. Thus, the contested evidence may be admitted, but certain passages reflecting exercise of the right to silence are to be excluded unless Mrs Ronen wishes them to remain.

Court Disposition

Contested evidence mostly admissible; specific passages reflecting right to silence excluded unless Mrs Ronen elects otherwise

Orders

  • ['Passages at tape 1 page 26 lines 275-281, tape 1 page 35 lines 411-415, tape 2 page 14 lines 116-117, tape 2 page 18 lines 130-133, tape 2 page 19 lines 137-139 are excluded unless Mrs Ronen wishes them to remain in transcript']