R v Roff

Case [2015] NSWSC 1853 14 December 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Roff [2015] NSWSC 1853
Hearing dates: 23 October 2015, 27 November 2015
Date of orders: 14 December 2015
Decision date: 14 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Order that Raymond Isaac Roff is to be tried separately from Sarah Renae Tarrant.
(2) Confirm the trial date of 21 March 2016 in respect of Sarah Renae Tarrant with the trial of Raymond Isaac Roff to proceed immediately thereafter.
(3) Note that the file will be referred to the Criminal List Judge for allocation of a trial Judge and that the trial Judge may arrange a call-over in February 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application for separate trial – whether prejudice at a joint trial because of admissions made by co-accused in recorded interview – co-accused asserts substantial impairment – co-accused implicates herself and the applicant – whether prejudice can be cured by direction – applicant denies involvement – evidence and Crown case the same against both accused – issues in the trials different – separate trials ordered
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Raymond Terrence Roff (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGrath SC (Crown)
R Sutherland SC (Roff)
J Manuell & I Nash (Tarrant)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP (Crown)

File Number(s): 13/243015

Judgment

Raymond Roff (the applicant) and Sarah Tarrant have been jointly indicted for the murder of Alois Rez. The applicant seeks an order under s 21(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) that he be tried separately from Ms Tarrant.
Mr Rez was the de-facto partner of Ms Tarrant. He was reported missing on 2 August 2013 by his mother and has not been seen since 28 July 2013. The evidence suggests that Ms Tarrant and/or the applicant were the last people to see him alive. The prosecution case is that the applicant and Ms Tarrant were in a sexual relationship, that she was pregnant with his child, that Ms Tarrant was unhappy in her relationship with Mr Rez and that the two accused agreed to kill him. The Crown alleges that on the evening of 28 July 2013 Ms Tarrant administered some form of sedative to Mr Rez and that the applicant attended and killed him at some time between 1:54 and 3:28 am on 29 July 2013. The timing is based on a series of text messages between the telephone services of the two accused. The Crown will assert that after Mr Rez was killed, the applicant disposed of his body while Ms Tarrant took steps to cover up the crime, specifically by hosing down the driveway.
On arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty to murder. However, Ms Tarrant entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The basis of this plea was that she has a partial defence under s 23A Crimes Act1900 (NSW). That is, she will assert that at the time of the killing she was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind and that this…

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 Roff

Details

AGLC: R v Roff [2015] NSWSC 1853
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1853
Decision Date: 14 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roff, the applicant sought to have their trial separated from that of their co-accused, who had implicated both of them in the commission of the same crime during a recorded interview. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant argued that the admissions made by the co-accused during the interview would prejudice the applicant’s trial, as the co-accused claimed substantial impairment, which could lead to the jury inferring that the applicant was guilty by association.

The court was required to determine whether the prejudice caused by the co-accused’s admissions could be cured by a proper direction to the jury, and whether separate trials were necessary to ensure a fair trial for the applicant. The applicant denied any involvement in the crime, and the evidence and the Crown's case against both accused were the same. However, the issues in the trials were different, and the court considered the need for a fair trial for the applicant.

The court found that the prejudice caused by the co-accused’s admissions was unlikely to be cured by a direction to the jury, as the co-accused’s claim of substantial impairment could lead to the jury inferring guilt by association. The court also considered the need for a fair trial for the applicant, and the fact that the issues in the trials were different. The court ordered separate trials for the applicant and the co-accused to ensure a fair trial for both parties.

Orders