Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208

Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208

The sentencing judge did not fail to consider the applicant's subjective circumstances, but did err by treating the absence of remorse or acknowledgement of the crime as a principal reason for setting a non-parole period longer than the standard non-parole period. In any event, weighing the objective seriousness of the planned and cold-blooded murder against the powerful subjective factors, including the applicant's prior good character, clean record, disability, circumstances of the offence and lack of likely recurrence, the head sentence of 32 years was outside the range properly open. The appeal was allowed and the applicant was resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment with a non-parole...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence for Murder / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Resentenced
Outcome
Extension of time granted, leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal allowed, original sentence quashed and applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'subjective Circumstances' 'absence of Remorse' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'resentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['murder' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'subjective Circumstances' 'absence of Remorse' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'resentencing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence for Murder / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Appeal Allowed and Applicant Resentenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's subjective case in determining the overall sentence and non-parole period." 'Whether the sentencing judge used the absence of remorse or acknowledgement of guilt as an aggravating factor or otherwise impermissibly in setting a longer non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentence of 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether time should be extended for filing the notice of appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not fail to consider the applicant's subjective circumstances, but did err by treating the absence of remorse or acknowledgement of the crime as a principal reason for setting a non-parole period longer than the standard non-parole period. In any event, weighing the objective seriousness of the planned and cold-blooded murder against the powerful subjective factors, including the applicant's prior good character, clean record, disability, circumstances of the offence and lack of likely recurrence, the head sentence of 32 years was outside the range properly open. The appeal was allowed and the applicant was resentenced to 25 years' imprisonment with a non-parole...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted, leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal allowed, original sentence quashed and applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for the filing of a notice of appeal to 19 June 2017.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Appeal allowed.' '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...