Legal Research
Cases
R v Tarrant

R v Tarrant

Case [2018] NSWSC 774 29 May 2018

Criminal Liability

Manslaughter

Partial Defence of Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarrant [2018] NSWSC 774
Hearing dates: 4 May 2018
Date of orders: 29 May 2018
Decision date: 29 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
For the manslaughter of Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013, the Offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of eight years comprising a non-parole period of five years commencing on 5 November 2015 and expiring on 4 November 2020 with a balance of term of three years commencing on 5 November 2020 and expiring on 4 November 2023.
The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 5 November 2020.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind– chronic depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and dependent personality disorder - substantial history of intimate partner violence – killing of abusive and controlling partner – level of planning in killing carried out by intended new partner of Offender with her assistance – no prior criminal history - early plea of guilty – assistance to authorities – remorseful – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Catley v R [2014] NSWCCA 249
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Williams [2014] VSC 304
Liyanage v Western Australia (2017) 51 WAR 359; [2017] WASCA 112
Merrick v R [2017] NSWCCA 264
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
Potts v R (2012) 227 A Crim R 271; [2012] NSWCCA 229
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 December 2015)
R v Cooper (Court of Criminal Appeal, 24 February 1998)
R v Dally (2000) 115 A Crim R 582; [2000] NSWCCA 162
R v Fiona Barbieri [2014] NSWSC 1808
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Green [1999] NSWCCA 97
R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim 179; [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Jenbare [2016] NSWSC 1317
R v Keceski (Court of Criminal Appeal, 10 August 1993)
R v MD (2005) 156 A Crim 372; [2005] NSWCCA 342
R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234
R v Roff [2015] NSWSC 1853
R v Runjanjic; R v Kontinnen (1991) 56 SASR 114
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v SZ (2007) 168 A Crim R 249; [2007] NSWCCA 19
R v Tarrant [2016] NSWSC 892
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
R v TP [2018] NSWSC 369
R v Wilkinson (No. 5) [2009] NSWSC 432
Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208
Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21
Ukropina v R [2016] NSWCCA 277
Villalon v R [2015] NSWCCA 229
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Sarah Renae Tarrant…

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 Tarrant

Details

AGLC: R v Tarrant [2018] NSWSC 774
Case: [2018] NSWSC 774
Decision Date: 29 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarrant involves the sentencing of the defendant, Tarrant, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The offence occurred in the context of Tarrant killing her abusive and controlling partner. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Tarrant had a substantial history of intimate partner violence and was suffering from chronic depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and dependent personality disorder at the time of the killing. The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for Tarrant, particularly in relation to whether the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind was applicable, and the extent to which Tarrant’s mental health conditions and history of abuse should mitigate her sentence.

The court considered whether Tarrant’s mental health conditions and the history of abuse constituted a substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, which could reduce the seriousness of the offence to manslaughter. The court also evaluated the level of planning involved in the killing, which was carried out with the assistance of Tarrant’s intended new partner. Tarrant had no prior criminal history, had pleaded guilty early, and had shown remorse and cooperated with authorities. The court balanced these factors with the need to ensure public safety and to deter similar offences. Ultimately, the court found that Tarrant’s mental health and history of abuse did contribute to a substantial impairment, but the level of planning and premeditation also needed to be factored into the sentencing decision.

In sentencing Tarrant, the court acknowledged the substantial impairment caused by her mental health conditions and the history of abuse, which had a significant impact on her actions. However, the court also considered the premeditation involved in the killing, which demonstrated a degree of culpability. After weighing all the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court decided that Tarrant’s sentence should reflect both the substantial impairment and the level of planning. Tarrant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders