Regina v Ida Ronen; Regina v Nitzan Ronen; Regina v Izhar Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 189

Regina v Ida Ronen; Regina v Nitzan Ronen; Regina v Izhar Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 189

Although the trial judge's certificate meant the interlocutory appeal was before the Court as of right and weighed in favour of a stay, the imminent commencement of a lengthy trial, the extensive prior interlocutory proceedings, the inconvenience to jurors, witnesses, the prosecution and the court, the age of the matter, and the Court's limited assessment that the applicants' prospects did not warrant delaying the trial led the Court to refuse a stay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Stay of Trial Pending Determination of Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
Stay refused
Legal Topics
['stay of Trial' 'pending Interlocutory Appeal' 'jury Empanelment' 'jury Panel Information' 'trial by Jury' 'balance of Convenience']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ['stay of Trial' 'pending Interlocutory Appeal' 'jury Empanelment' 'jury Panel Information' 'trial by Jury' 'balance of Convenience']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Stay of Trial Pending Determination of Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' trial should be stayed pending final determination of interlocutory appeal issues certified by the trial judge as proper for determination on appeal." 'Whether the balance of convenience, prejudice to parties, administration of justice and prospects of success warranted delaying an imminent lengthy criminal trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge's certificate meant the interlocutory appeal was before the Court as of right and weighed in favour of a stay, the imminent commencement of a lengthy trial, the extensive prior interlocutory proceedings, the inconvenience to jurors, witnesses, the prosecution and the court, the age of the matter, and the Court's limited assessment that the applicants' prospects did not warrant delaying the trial led the Court to refuse a stay.

Court Disposition

Stay refused

Orders

  • ['Application for stay of the trial refused.']