Tarrant for the offence of manslaughter. Mr Alois Rez was killed on 29 July 2013. At the time of his death, he was in a
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Tarrant v R [2018] NSWCCA 21 Basten JA, R A Hulme J, Hidden AJ The Court of Criminal Appeal has allowed an appeal against the sentence of Ms Sarah Tarrant for the offence of manslaughter. Mr Alois Rez was killed on 29 July 2013. At the time of his death, he was in a de facto relationship with Ms Tarrant. The Crown alleged that Mr Rez was killed by Ms Tarrant and Mr Raymond Roff, a man with whom she was then in a sexual relationship. Ms Tarrant did not deny her involvement in the killing; however, at trial, she argued that she should be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. She gave evidence of Mr Rez’s history of domestic abuse towards her, and psychologists testified that she was suffering from conditions including a persistent depressive disorder and a personality disorder with dependent traits at the time of the killing. On 14 April 2016 the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. Mr Roff’s trial commenced following Ms Tarrant’s conviction. He denied any involvement in the killing; Ms Tarrant was the principal witness against him. On 13 May 2016, the jury found Mr Roff guilty of murder. Mr Roff and Ms Tarrant were sentenced together on 19 August 2016. Ms Tarrant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 8 years. On appeal, Ms Tarrant alleged that the sentencing judge’s conduct during her trial, during the trial of Mr Roff, and during her sentencing hearing gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias against her. She relied on, for example, questions the judge had asked while she was giving evidence (both in her own trial and Mr Roff’s trial), comments the judge had made after Mr Roff was convicted, and questions the judge had asked the expert psychologists during the sentencing hearing. The key issue considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether Ms Tarrant’s sentence should be set aside on the basis of apprehended bias. The Court held that the sentence should be set aside and a new sentence imposed. The Court was not required to consider whether the sentencing judge was actually biased when sentencing Ms Tarrant; rather, the question was whether an ordinary observer might have formed the view that the judge might not have brought an impartial mind to the sentencing task. At the conclusion of Mr Roff’s trial, and in the absence of Ms Tarrant’s legal representatives, the sentencing judge had made comments adverse to Ms Tarrant. Although his Honour had stressed that the comments were tentative and not findings, they were nonetheless expressed in strong terms. Further, the judge’s questioning of the expert psychologists could be viewed as challenging the basis of their conclusions, even though their evidence must have been accepted by the jury when finding that Ms Tarrant was guilty This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
of manslaughter rather than murder. In those circumstances, the test for apprehended bias was met. The matter will now return to the Supreme Court, to sentence Ms Tarrant.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
