Roff v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 208 30 August 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208
Hearing dates: 18 August 2017
Decision date: 30 August 2017
Before: Leeming JA; Button J; Hamill J
Decision:
1. Extend the time for the filing of a notice of appeal to 19 June 2017.
2. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
3. Appeal allowed.
4. Quash the sentence of 32 years with a non‑parole period of 24 years imposed on 19 August 2016, and in lieu thereof, sentence Raymond Isaac Roff to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 18 years and 9 months to commence on 9 August 2013 and to expire on 8 May 2032 and a balance of term of 6 years and 3 months to commence on 9 May 2032 and to expire on 8 August 2038.
5. Note that Raymond Isaac Roff will be eligible for release on parole at the expiry of the non-parole period on 8 May 2032.
6. 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.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – murder – whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to subjective case – whether sentencing judge relied on absence of remorse as aggravating factor – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal allowed and offender resentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 54B, 61
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 10
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Riggio v R [2015] NSWCCA 223
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Isaac Roff (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hughes SC, M Curry (Applicant)
F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brock Partners Lawyers (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

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

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Citation:

[2016] NSWSC 1151

Date of Decision:

19 August 2016

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2013/243015

Judgment

THE COURT: In 2016, a Supreme Court jury found the applicant, Mr Raymond Isaac Roff, guilty of having murdered of Mr Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013. He had been arrested on 9 August 2013. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 24 years commencing 9 August 2013 with a balance of term of 8 years. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
When, in August 2016, sentence was imposed, the applicant was 54 years old. When the non-parole period expires in…

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 Roff v R

Details

AGLC: Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 30 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roff v R involved an appeal against a sentence imposed for the crime of murder. The respondent, Roff, had been convicted of murder and sentenced by the sentencing judge. The appellant, Roff, challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to consider certain mitigating factors and had placed undue emphasis on the absence of remorse. The matter was heard in the appellate court, which was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their consideration of the case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the subjective circumstances of the case, whether the judge had improperly relied on the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently weigh the mitigating factors, particularly the appellant's background and personal circumstances, and that the emphasis on the lack of remorse was not justified given the evidence presented. The court was required to review the sentence in light of these contentions and determine if the original sentence should be upheld or if a different sentence was warranted.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the subjective aspects of the case and had placed undue weight on the absence of remorse. The court held that the sentencing judge's failure to appropriately weigh the mitigating factors, including the appellant's background and personal circumstances, constituted an error. Furthermore, the court determined that the emphasis on the lack of remorse was not justified by the evidence. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The offender was resentenced by the appellate court, taking into account the proper considerations and mitigating factors that should have been applied in the original sentencing process.

The final orders of the court involved the resentencing of the offender, reflecting the court's determination that the original sentence was inappropriate. The appellate court meticulously reviewed the case and provided a new sentence that appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors in the sentencing process, particularly in cases of serious crimes such as murder.

Orders