R v Raymond Roff - [2016] NSWSC 1151

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Raymond Roff [2016] NSWSC 1151
Hearing dates: 14 April 2016 – 13 May 2016, 23 May 2016, 24 June 2016, 1 July 2016, 12, 19 August 2016
Date of orders: 19 August 2016
Decision date: 19 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1. For the murder of Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013 Raymond Isaac Roff is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 24 years to commence on 9 August 2013 and to expire on 8 August 2037 and a balance of term of 8 years to commence on 9 August 2037 and to expire on 8 August 2045.

2. Raymond Isaac Roff will be eligible for release on parole at the expiry of the non-parole period.

3. Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the offender is notified that the provisions of the Act apply to him and to the offending the subject of these proceedings.
4. For the offence of possessing unauthorised firearms at Dubbo between 9 and 10 August 2013 contrary to s 7A(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Raymond Roff is fined the sum of $2000.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – committed in company – murder of co-offender’s de facto husband – planned – use of intoxicating substance – intention to kill – no remorse – disposal of deceased’s body – good prospects of rehabilitation – no relevant prior convictions – firearms offences on Form 1
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Raymond Isaac Roff (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Peter McGrath (Regina)
Mr Robert Sutherland SC/Mr Braddon Hughes SC/Mr Thomas Warr (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Gizelle Van Zyl (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr Kevin Rodgers, Brock Partners (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/243015
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The trial of Raymond Roff for murder commenced before me on 14 April 2016. On 13 May 2016 the jury returned their verdict finding him guilty as charged: that on 29 July 2013 at Dubbo he did murder Alois Rez.
The sentence hearing for the offender was completed on 12 August 2016. It did not proceed immediately after the trial because I considered that it would be necessary to defer passing sentence until I had considered evidence and submissions in relation to the sentencing of Sarah Tarrant. She was complicit in the homicide of Alois Rez and was found guilty of manslaughter on 14 April 2016. Due to limitations upon the availability of Sarah Tarrant’s counsel and of two psychiatric expert witnesses, her sentence hearing could not take place until 1 July 2016.

Particulars of the offence

From June 2012 until his death in the early hours of 29 July 2013 Alois Rez lived at 46 Alfred Street Dubbo with his partner Sarah Tarrant and their 4 children.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Raymond Roff

Details

AGLC: R v Raymond Roff [2016] NSWSC 1151
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1151
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Raymond Roff, was convicted of murder for killing his co-offender’s de facto husband in company, using an intoxicating substance and with the intention to kill. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Roff was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court examined the relevant principles of sentencing for murder, including the principle that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime. The court noted that the murder was premeditated, carried out in company, involved the use of an intoxicating substance, and showed no remorse. The court also considered Roff’s prospects of rehabilitation and the fact that he had no relevant prior convictions. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the court, which found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender. The court also noted that the sentence should reflect the principles of general and specific deterrence, as well as the need for the punishment to fit the crime. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders