Tarrant v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 124
It was open to the sentencing judge at retrial to make more adverse findings about the applicant's involvement, supported by evidence, leading to a heavier sentence than imposed at the first trial. The principle of restraint does not prevent a judge from drawing different inferences where justified. No procedural unfairness occurred because the possibility of a heavier sentence was canvassed with counsel.
- Parties
- Applicant: Donna Clare Tarrant; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence After Retrial
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentence on Retrial, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Complicity, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Donna Clare Tarrant
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Sentence After Retrial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a heavier sentence can be imposed on retrial than at the first trial
- 2 Whether factual findings departing from the first trial can justify a heavier sentence
- 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied in the sentencing process after retrial
Ratio Decidendi
It was open to the sentencing judge at retrial to make more adverse findings about the applicant's involvement, supported by evidence, leading to a heavier sentence than imposed at the first trial. The principle of restraint does not prevent a judge from drawing different inferences where justified. No procedural unfairness occurred because the possibility of a heavier sentence was canvassed with counsel.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment