Legal Research
Cases
Tarrant v R

Tarrant v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 21 23 February 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21
Hearing dates: 1 and 2 February 2018
Decision date: 23 February 2018
Before: Basten JA, R A Hulme J, Hidden AJ
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the sentence imposed in the Common Law Division on 19 August 2016.
(2)   Allow the appeal and set aside the sentence and orders made by Fagan J in the Common Law Division.
(3)   Remit the matter to the Common Law Division for the sentencing of the applicant with respect to the offence of manslaughter of Alois Rez.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – apprehended bias – whether comments and questions by sentencing judge during applicant’s trial, a co-offender’s trial, and sentencing hearings gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – application for recusal rejected – whether sentencing judgment should be set aside
CRIME – manslaughter – appeal against sentence – diminished responsibility – assessment of culpability – whether findings consistent with jury finding of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 23A
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6
Cases Cited: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; [2011] HCA 2
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577; [2006] HCA 55
CUR24 v Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) 83 NSWLR 385; [2012] NSWCA 65
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Goodwin v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWCA 379
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; [2000] HCA 48
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48
R v Antaky [2007] NSWSC 1047
R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
R v Tarrant [2016] NSWSC 892
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342; [1986] HCA 39
Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208
Rouvinetis v Knoll [2013] NSWCA 24
Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2016] NSWCA 88
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sarah Renea Tarrant (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G Bashir SC/Mr C McGorey (Applicant)
Ms C Webster SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/243004
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law Division

Citation:

[2016] NSWSC 1155

Date of Decision:

19 August 2016

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2013/243004

Judgment

THE COURT: For some nine years prior to 29 July 2013 Alois Rez had lived in a de facto relationship of some turbulence with Sarah Tarrant. On the night of 29 July 2013 he was killed. The Crown alleged that he was murdered by Ms Tarrant and a man with whom she was then in a sexual relationship, Raymond Roff. Ms Tarrant did not deny her involvement in the killing of Rez…

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 Tarrant v R

Details

AGLC: Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 21
Decision Date: 23 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Tarrant, was convicted of manslaughter and appealed against his sentence. The appeal centred on whether the comments and questions made by the sentencing judge during the appellant's trial, a co-offender's trial, and sentencing hearings gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant also argued that his sentence should be set aside due to diminished responsibility, asserting that the sentencing judgment was inconsistent with the jury's finding of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind.

The court examined whether the judge's conduct during the proceedings created a reasonable apprehension of bias. It considered the judge's comments and questions in context, assessing whether they demonstrated an attitude that could lead a reasonable observer to doubt the judge's impartiality. The court also evaluated the findings of diminished responsibility in light of the jury's verdict, examining whether the sentencing judgment appropriately reflected the substantial impairment by abnormality of mind.

The court concluded that the judge's conduct did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The comments and questions were found to be within the bounds of judicial conduct and did not indicate a partiality that would lead a reasonable observer to doubt the judge's impartiality. The court further found that the sentencing judgment was consistent with the jury's finding of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, as it appropriately assessed the appellant's culpability in light of his mental condition.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court rejected the application for recusal and affirmed the sentence imposed. The court held that the sentencing judgment accurately reflected the appellant's culpability and the circumstances of the offence, taking into account his diminished responsibility.

Orders