R v Tarrant - [2016] NSWSC 1155

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tarrant [2016] NSWSC 1155
Hearing dates: 21 March 2016 – 14 April 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 manslaughter of Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013 Sarah Renea Tarrant is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 8 years to commence on 5 November 2015 and to expire on 4 November 2023 and a balance of term of 2 years and 8 months to commence on 5 November 2023 and to expire on 4 July 2026.

2. The offender 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 her and to the offending the subject of these proceedings.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – substantial impairment by abnormality of mind – minimal degree of impairment – death of offender’s de facto husband committed in company – planned – use of intoxicating substance – early plea of guilty – assistance to authorities – remorseful – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Catley v R [2014] NSWCCA 249
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De
La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Anatky [2007] NSWSC 1047
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep) at 4
R v Chen [2012] NSWSC 1000
R v Cooper (Supreme Court (NSW), Newman J, 16 May 1997, unrep)
R v Cooper (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, Ireland and Bruce JJ, 24 February 1998, unrep)
R v Hevesi-Nagi [2009] NSWSC 755
R v Hevesi-Nagi [2009] NSWSC 956
R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
Regina v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Troja (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Kirby P, Grove and Newman JJ, 16 July 1991, unrep)
Villalon v R [2015] NSWCCA 229
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Sarah Renea Tarrant (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Peter McGrath SC (Regina)
Ms Janet Manuell SC/Ian Nash (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Gyzelle Van Zyl (Regina)
Narelle Marshall (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/243004
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Sarah Tarrant was charged that she did murder Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013. Upon arraignment on 21 March 2016 she pleaded not guilty to murder, guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept the plea and she was tried for murder. On 14 April 2016 the jury acquitted her of…

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 [2016] NSWSC 1155
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1155
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarrant involved the defendant, Tarrant, who was charged with the manslaughter of his de facto husband. The incident occurred in a planned manner while Tarrant was under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Tarrant entered an early plea of guilty and expressed remorse for his actions, and demonstrated a willingness to assist authorities and showed good prospects for rehabilitation. The case came before the court to determine an appropriate sentence given the circumstances and mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for manslaughter, particularly in light of Tarrant's substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. The court had to consider whether the degree of impairment was minimal, the premeditated nature of the crime, the influence of intoxication, Tarrant's early plea and remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that despite Tarrant's substantial impairment, the degree of impairment was minimal. The premeditated nature of the offence and the use of an intoxicating substance were significant aggravating factors. However, the court also took into account Tarrant's early guilty plea, his expression of remorse, his cooperation with authorities, and his good prospects for rehabilitation. After careful consideration of these factors, the court determined that the circumstances warranted a sentence that reflected both the need for punishment and the potential for Tarrant's rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that was intended to achieve these dual objectives.

The court made orders for Tarrant's sentence, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors discussed. The specific details of the sentence were not provided in the text, but the court's decision was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances and legal principles applicable to the case.

Orders