Legal Research
Cases
Tarrant v R

Tarrant v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 124 8 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Tarrant v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 124

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 20 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Bell J at 1; Johnson J at 1

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: - application for leave to appeal against sentence - murder - co-offenders - sentence after retrial - heavier sentence than sentence passed at first trial - different finding by second judge about applicant's role

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v Bedford (1986) 5 NSWLR 711
R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452
Williams v The Queen (No 2) [1982] WAR 281
R v Chen [1993] 2 VR 139
R v Petersen [1999] 2 Qd R 85
R v MM (2000) 135 A Crim R 216
R v Hannes [2002] NSWSC 1182
R v Merritt (No 2) [2000] NSWCCA 365
R v Olenik [2002] NSWCCA 90
R v Khouzame [2000] NSWCCA 505
Fairbairn v Regina (2006) 165 A Crim R 434

PARTIES: Donna Clare Tarrant (applicant)
Regina (respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1602

COUNSEL: H Dhanji (applicant)
J A Girdham (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Catherine Hunter (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2002/139

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Latham J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 December 2005

2006/1602

HIDDEN J
BELL J
JOHNSON J
Friday, 8 June 2007

Donna Clare Tarrant v Regina

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The applicant, Donna Clare Tarrant, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her by Latham J following her conviction of murder. She had been tried before her Honour and a jury with two co-offenders, Shiree Anne Smit and Steven Charles Smit. All three were found guilty.

2 It was a retrial. The three had previously been convicted after a trial before Hulme J and a jury. His Honour had sentenced each of Mr and Mrs Smit to imprisonment for seventeen years with a non-parole period of thirteen years, and the applicant to fourteen years with a non-parole period of eleven years. For reasons which need not concern us, those convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

3 Following that new trial, Latham J sentenced each of the three offenders to imprisonment for sixteen years with a non-parole period of twelve years. The sentences were imposed under the regime prior to the 2002 amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. It will be seen that Mr and Mrs Smit were sentenced to lesser terms than those which had been imposed by Hulme J, whereas the applicant’s sentence was greater than that which his Honour had passed. It is that development which gives rise to the present application.

Facts

4 The applicant and her co-offenders were dealt with for the murder of Craig Patrick Collins at his home in Katoomba on 28 August 2001. The deceased’s body…

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 [2007] NSWCCA 124
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 124
Decision Date: 8 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tarrant v R involved the applicant seeking leave to appeal against his sentence for murder. The applicant, along with his co-offender, had been initially convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following an appeal, the convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered. At the retrial, the applicant was again convicted of murder but received a heavier sentence than the one imposed at the first trial. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the judge had erred in finding that he played a more significant role in the crime than in the first trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the judge had erred in determining the applicant's role in the crime. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, the appropriate weight to be given to the applicant's role in the crime, and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed. The applicant argued that the heavier sentence was unjust and that the judge's finding about his role was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder and the appropriate weight to be given to the applicant's role in the crime. It found that the judge had not erred in determining the applicant's role and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the applicant's role in it. The court also noted that the judge had considered the appropriate weight to be given to the applicant's role in the crime and that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the application. The applicant's conviction and sentence for murder were upheld, and he remained subject to the sentence imposed at the retrial.

Orders