R v Raymond Roff

Supreme Court of NSW|2016-04-14|Before: Fagan J

Judgment

The trial of Raymond Roff for murder commenced before me on 14 April 2016. On 13 May 2016 the jury returned their verdict finding him guilty as charged: that on 29 July 2013 at Dubbo he did murder Alois Rez.
The sentence hearing for the offender was completed on 12 August 2016. It did not proceed immediately after the trial because I considered that it would be necessary to defer passing sentence until I had considered evidence and submissions in relation to the sentencing of Sarah Tarrant. She was complicit in the homicide of Alois Rez and was found guilty of manslaughter on 14 April 2016. Due to limitations upon the availability of Sarah Tarrant's counsel and of two psychiatric expert witnesses, her sentence hearing could not take place until 1 July 2016.

Particulars of the offence

From June 2012 until his death in the early hours of 29 July 2013 Alois Rez lived at 46 Alfred Street Dubbo with his partner Sarah Tarrant and their 4 children. Alois Rez was 33 years old at the date of his death and Sarah Tarrant was 24. Raymond Roff was 51. From December 2012 the offender and Sarah Tarrant had been strongly attracted to each other and from March 2013 they were in a passionate affair. On 25 July 2013 they agreed to kill Alois Rez so that they could be together publicly.

Maximum penalty

The maximum penalty of life imprisonment for murder may be reduced to a specific term of years pursuant to s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Such a reduction may not be made if "the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through" a sentence of life imprisonment. I am not satisfied that this case attracts the statutory bar in s 61(1). I consider that I must fix a finite term of imprisonment. In doing so I will have regard to the standard non‑parole period of 20 years which applies to the offence of murder under Pt 4 Div 1A, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Personal circumstances of Raymond Roff

This terrible crime was an extraordinary exception to everything about the offender's character and conduct up to that date. Raymond Roff gave evidence of his background at trial. More information emerged from a long letter he wrote to Sarah Tarrant in March 2013, from a psychologist's report and testimonials tendered on sentence.
Roff was born in Dubbo on 8 January 1962. His father was a violent alcoholic. His mother "had mental health issues and was very passive aggressive" towards her children. By the time he was 14 he had four younger sisters and five younger brothers. Then his father died at the age of 38. Up to that point his childhood had been harsh, now it ended. He assumed responsibility for his younger brothers and sisters and took jobs before and after school hours to provide for the family.
The offender's education ended at year 10 and he began full-time seasonal work, harvesting fruit and crops in the Dubbo area. At about this time his mother took up with another man and moved to live with him. She took the three youngest children. Raymond Roff was left to be the breadwinner and head of household for himself and six of his siblings. The eldest of his sisters says that he worked hard to ensure that they would not have to be taken into care. Prior to his mother's departure he had an ambition to become a soldier; that had to be abandoned. His sister credits him that he never complained or blamed anyone for his disappointments and misfortunes.
When he was 18 the offender commenced a relationship with the girl who would become his wife, Cathy. She was 16. The offender became a father at 18. Six more children followed over the next 10 years. Raymond and Cathy Roff planned to travel together once their children had grown up. With that in mind the offender worked in a variety of occupations, to acquire skills which would make him readily employable wherever he and Cathy might travel far off in the future.
The third child of Raymond and Cathy Roff, a son, was lost to cot death at 12 weeks. After this tragedy Cathy began to develop symptoms of mental illness. Some years later she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The causes appear to have included childhood experiences as well as the loss of her baby boy. She suffered these illnesses until her death in 2012, with frequent self-harm and attempts to take her own life. There were times when the offender feared to go to work and leave her alone. Raymond Roff's eldest sister describes him as highly protective of his wife. He never faltered in his love for her, stood by her and their children. He shared with all of them the many difficulties life threw at them.
In April 2003 whilst working for the Rural Lands Protection Board the offender was seriously injured. A quad bike tipped over while a workmate was trying to drive it up a ramp onto the tray of a truck. The offender "drove [his] shoulder into the bike and caught it and put it back on the truck so that it didn't land on top of [the fellow worker]". In describing this event in his evidence the offender was matter of fact about his selfless exposure to personal danger. The incident tore the nerves in the offender's left arm and damaged discs in his cervical and lumbar spine. The latter in turn caused sciatic nerve damage which interfered with the functionality of his legs. Raymond Roff returned to light duties after surgery but has been significantly physically disabled and in discomfort ever since.
From about 2003 up to July 2013 the offender worked part-time on call as a maintenance man for a motel in Dubbo. In that period he also carried out some building and renovating work as a self-employed contractor in the Dubbo district. The psychologist's report tendered on his behalf includes the results of formal scientific testing of his functional intelligence, placing him "in the average range". This assessment does not do him credit for his demonstrated practical capability and powers of thought and expression. In the course of his life he has attained many working skills. He was articulate, well spoken and quick thinking in giving his evidence. His long love letter to Sarah Tarrant, written in March 2013, is lucid. It shows depth in reflections upon his life and in forthright expression of his feelings.
By May 2010 Cathy Roff must have been responding to treatment. With the youngest child having reached adulthood the couple began to make plans in accordance with their early idea of travel in retirement. It never happened. Cathy was diagnosed with cancer. The offender nursed her over the next 2 years. She died in May 2012.
By his own account, which I accept, the offender had been a faithful husband for over 30 years and a loving and interested parent. In various aspects of his evidence he exhibited a strong family sense and a nurturing disposition. His eldest sister attests to this. He told the psychologist that for a period after Cathy's death he "just didn't care". He withdrew socially.

The offender's connection with the deceased and the co-offender

The offender had known the deceased's mother, Zonia Rez, from school days in the 1970s. Alois Rez was of a similar age to the offender's eldest son and the two boys had played weekend team sport together when they were young. In his early teens Alois Rez moved with his mother from Dubbo to the Newcastle area. Raymond Roff had no further contact with them until mid-2010. At that time he meet socially with Alois Rez and Sarah Tarrant over several weeks whilst the late Cathy Roff was receiving treatment at the John Hunter Hospital, near to where Mr Rez and Sarah Tarrant then lived.
When Alois Rez and Sarah Tarrant moved with their children and Zonia Rez back to Dubbo in June 2012 they initially stayed for a short time at the offender's home. Upon moving to 46 Alfred Street Dubbo they commenced renovating their home. The offender assisted in this work, both physically and as an advisor. He began to visit the home daily, often just for company.
During the second half of 2012 and through early 2013 the offender showed interest in and affection for the children of Sarah Tarrant and Alois Rez. The children were then aged between 6 months and 6 years. Raymond Roff assisted Sarah Tarrant with their care on his visits to the home. He became close to her and showed her kindness and consideration. She confided in him that she was unhappy with Alois Rez, that he demeaned and criticised her, that he was lazy and demanding. She told the offender that Zonia Rez also criticised and belittled her. She said she would gladly end the relationship with Alois Rez.
The passion which the offender came to feel for Sarah Tarrant from late 2012 unhinged his judgment. He had been of sound sense and morality throughout all his adult years to this point. By every account given in evidence before me he was a solid, honest, hard-working family man. It is material to the determination of an appropriate sentence that I should trace, briefly, the development of Raymond Roff's relationship with his co-offender. His descent to murder is directly attributable to his infatuation with this young woman.
I make the following findings of fact with due regard for the requirement that matters tending to mitigate the seriousness of Raymond Roff's offending and facts subjectively in his favour need only be proved on the balance of probabilities. Facts tending to add to the seriousness of the crime or militating against lenience on a subjective basis require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In about December 2012 Sarah Tarrant began to make very explicit sexual overtures to the offender. On one occasion she deliberately exposed herself to the offender then asked him if he liked what he had seen. Soon after she entered her phone number in Raymond Roff's phone and suggested that it be filed under "yes please". During January 2013 Sarah Tarrant commenced to send Roff sexually explicit photographs of herself. I accept his evidence that this continued through to July 2013.
This strong encouragement commenced to be accepted by the offender in early 2013, with increasingly intimate physical contact leading to sexual intercourse for the first time on 3 March 2013. At Easter 2013, which was at the end of March, Sarah Tarrant wrote a long love letter addressed to the offender. She left this for him in his motorhome, then located at Burrendong Dam 70 km Southeast of Dubbo. The offender replied in a letter of similar length, to which I have earlier referred. The offender declared he wanted to marry Sarah Tarrant and promised to be a good husband and a good father to her children. From March onwards they met many times at locations around Dubbo for sexual intercourse They met on most weekdays when Sarah Tarrant's children were at school and sometimes twice on such days.
In the offender's own words to the reporting psychologist, "I was lonely. I could talk to her and what she was telling me was what I wanted to hear". His psychologist interprets his life history as suggesting "a pattern of general emotional withdrawal from others but a tendency to identify one individual who he attaches to and he seeks to meet all his emotional needs through this relationship". With the loss of his wife the "one individual" became Sarah Tarrant.
According to his self-assessment, expressed in the course of giving evidence, Raymond Roff had a strong sex drive. Sarah Tarrant showed willing. The feelings may have been mutual or she may have done what was necessary to satisfy the offender, to keep his interest and have him take responsibility for her - I cannot tell which.
Sarah Tarrant had been unhappy in her relationship with Alois Rez from soon after it began in 2004. They had commenced living together as man and wife when she was 15 years old. Alois Rez was 9½ years older. She gave birth to the first of their four children at the age of 16. Sarah Tarrant had had an unfulfilling relationship with her father. She has been diagnosed as having a personality disorder with dependent traits. It is clear to me that she looked to an older man to take responsibility for her. She looked first to Alois Rez and, when she felt she had become a slave to him and that she was not valued or respected by him, she looked to Raymond Roff.
For Sarah Tarrant the impediment to fulfilment of her wish to be with the offender was that she feared Alois Rez would deprive her of her children, should she leave him. She told the offender that she also feared Alois Rez might be violent towards her following a separation. She said in evidence that she held such a fear. The offender's evidence at his trial was that Sarah Tarrant never reported to him any violence by Alois Rez towards her during the 13 months they had lived together in Dubbo, except one minor incident on 23 July 2013, six days before Mr Rez was killed.

Lead up to the murder

In May 2013 Sarah Tarrant told the offender she wanted Alois Rez "gone". She meant by this that she wanted him dead. The offender so understood it. In the offender's trial Sarah Tarrant gave evidence to this effect regarding the conversation of May 2013, which I accept. The offender denied that there was such a conversation but I find these matters proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Sarah Tarrant gave no evidence of any further specific discussion with the offender between May 2013 and 25 July 2013 on the subject of having Alois Rez "gone". I do not accept that there was no further mention of the subject in this interval. But there is no evidence upon which I could make an affirmative finding about any particular additional discussion. That is because (a) the offender has at all times denied having ever spoken to Sarah Tarrant about killing or harming Alois Rez and (b) Sarah Tarrant, whilst admitting an agreement with the offender to kill the deceased and admitting her participation in the carrying out of that plan, has given evidence only of the conversations in May and July 2013. There was no other witness to any additional conversations which may have taken place between these dates.
In June 2013 Sarah Tarrant informed the offender she was pregnant. She told him he was the father and he believed her. On about 15 July 2013 he gave her an ultimatum. Within 3 weeks she would have to have to leave Alois Rez and become Roff's partner in a relationship that would be open and public. Otherwise, the offender said, he would break off his relationship with Sarah Tarrant altogether. She cried when this was put to her and terminated the conversation without answering.
On 23 July 2013 the offender visited 46 Alfred Street for some hours during the evening. He left at about 10:30 pm. After his departure Alois Rez accused Sarah Tarrant of conducting an affair with the offender. There was a moderate physical altercation between them. She was pushed and dragged along the hallway. Sarah Tarrant sent a text message to the offender describing the incident and saying Alois Rez had tried to eject her from the home. She asked the offender to call the police. One of her text messages at this time also informed the offender that Alois Rez had said late in the evening that the offender was not to come to the house any more.
The offender called the police on the emergency services number. When they attended 46 Alfred Street Sarah Tarrant told them there was no problem. This caused the officers to enquire of the offender what had prompted his emergency call. The episode angered the offender against Sarah Tarrant. In the next day or so he told her that this had been their chance to have the police remove Alois Rez and that they would not have another such opportunity. Instead of capitalising on the chance she had made a fool of him. He repeated his ultimatum of the previous week.
At this Sarah Tarrant cried again and told the offender, for the first time, that Alois Rez had been violent towards her in the past. The implication was that she was physically afraid to leave Alois Rez.
Sarah Tarrant gave evidence that she met with the offender on 25 July 2013 and they formed a concrete plan for the elimination of the deceased. The offender supplied her with sleeping tablets and told her these should be crushed and mixed into Alois Rez's evening meal on a night when his mother, Zonia Rez, who shared the house at 46 Alfred Street, was away. He instructed that when Alois Rez went into a deep sleep she was to let the offender know and he would come to the house. She understood that the offender would then kill the deceased. He did not explain what he would do with the body. He told Sarah Tarrant it would be safer for her not to know these details.
The offender and Sarah Tarrant agreed that they would not immediately report Alois Rez missing. They intended that when his absence was noted they would promote a story that he was likely to have been kidnapped and eliminated by members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang with whom the deceased had had a disagreement in early 2012. I accept beyond reasonable doubt Sarah Tarrant's evidence to the effect summarised in this and the preceding paragraph.
According to the offender's own evidence, on Sunday 28 July 2013 Alois Rez rang and invited him to visit 46 Alfred Street. Upon the offender attending, around the middle of the day, Alois Rez asked him "Are we right?". The offender understood this to be a request for assurance that there were no hard feelings between the two men following Alois Rez having accused the offender of misconduct with Sarah Tarrant and having said that he was no longer welcome at their home. The offender replied "We're always right". All the same, he murdered Alois Rez about 14 hours later in accordance with the plan he had made with Sarah Tarrant three days before.
During the afternoon of Sunday 28 July 2013 Sarah Tarrant drove Alois Rez's mother to the Dubbo railway station to board a train bound for Sydney. It was expected she would be away for at least a week. That night Sarah Tarrant mixed the crushed sleeping tablets into a serving of mashed potato which was part of a meal she made for Alois Rez. As he became drowsy and eventually fell into a deep sleep, Sarah Tarrant kept the offender informed by text messages about the victim's state of consciousness. Pursuant to the offender's request she left the front door of 46 Alfred Street unlocked, switched off a sensor light at the front of the house and disconnected a closed-circuit camera which normally displayed movements around the front of the property on a monitor in the deceased's bedroom.
At about 1:50 am when Alois Rez was sleeping soundly enough not to be disturbed by a train passing nearby, Sarah Tarrant conveyed this information to the offender by text. He came to the house at about 2:00 am. He entered the bedroom and killed the deceased. The manner in which Alois Rez died is not known because his body has never been recovered. The offender dragged the body, wrapped in bedding, from the bedroom to the front driveway. He had backed his vehicle close to the house. Sarah Tarrant helped him lift the body into the back of the vehicle. The offender drove out into the countryside and disposed of the body at an unknown location. He instructed Sarah Tarrant in an SMS to hose off the driveway, which she did.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that mortal injuries were inflicted on the deceased in his bedroom. His body was motionless when the offender and Sarah Tarrant lifted it into the back of the offender's vehicle. Alois Rez was by that time either dead or close to death from wounds inflicted while he lay asleep.
The victim's aunt and his mother were aware of his absence within a few days of 29 July 2013. On 2 August they reported him as a missing person to Dubbo police.
Sarah Tarrant lied to police, in denial of their homicide of Alois Rez, during a lengthy interview on 2 August 2013. The same day Raymond Roff made a statement to police about the matter in which he lied about not knowing the circumstances of Alois Rez's disappearance. During the following week police examined the offender's vehicle and found dried blood in its rear compartment. This was later linked by DNA profiling to the deceased. A search warrant was executed at the offender's home on Friday 9 August 2013. During its execution the offender at first denied to police any relationship between himself and Sarah Tarrant. The love letters which had been exchanged between the offender and Sarah Tarrant in March of that year were then found. The offender made valiant but unconvincing efforts to explain his initial denial of the affair.
On the night of 9 August 2014, under effective questioning by Detective Sgt Baker of the Dubbo detectives, Sarah Tarrant confessed most of the facts about the plan she had made with the offender for the killing of Alois Rez. During the early hours of 10 August 2013 a record of interview was conducted with the offender in which he said there had never been such a plan. He claimed to have no idea what had happened to Alois Rez.
Raymond Roff maintained this stance in his evidence at trial. He admitted to the jury he had attended the residence in the early hours of Monday 29 July but said his purpose was not to kill Alois Rez, only to light a fire on his driveway to frighten him into believing that the Rebels had left a "calling card" or warning. He said this was the plan he and Sarah Tarrant had made. The implementation of this plan was what was referred to in the text messages between them on the night. The jury evidently rejected this.

Objective seriousness of the murder

Objectively this was a very serious murder. It was premeditated, planned in detail several days beforehand and implemented coldly and thoroughly. Raymond Roff was a family friend of the victim. He had known the victim from when he was a childhood playmate of one of his own sons. He did not kill Alois Rez in a fit of rage, on the spur of the moment or in uncontrolled desperation. The crime was calculated for the advancement of the offender's interests, to enable him to take up with the younger man's de facto wife.
The murder was the more serious for having been carried out in concert with another (s 21A(2)(e) and (n) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act), albeit there could be no suggestion that the offender co-opted or corrupted his younger co-conspirator. It was her idea. Psychiatric evidence was given concerning Sarah Tarrant in the joint sentence hearing following the two trials. I accept the psychiatrists' opinions that Sarah Tarrant held an exaggerated perception of Alois Rez's power in relation to her and that she did not appreciate her own potential - for example, to leave him and take the children, to win custody of them and to obtain police protection against him. In effect the psychiatrists describe Sarah Tarrant as a case of arrested development, a person who entered a de facto marriage at 15 and never matured emotionally or socially thereafter.
Why Raymond Roff was not able to open Sarah Tarrant's eyes to a lawful solution for her situation remains unexplained. The offender has given no evidence on the topic and only he would be able to say. He certainly tried to bring about police intervention on the night of 23 July 2013 and he remonstrated with Sarah Tarrant for not having then taken the opportunity to have Alois Rez removed from the house lawfully.
Accompanying his physical attraction to her, Roff's strength of feeling for Sarah Tarrant appears to have been sincere and decent. She became everything to him. With her he felt he could be a young man again, starting over with a second family, of her children and their own. Without her the future was cold, widowed and alone in a country town. The starkness of the alternatives overwhelmed him. To achieve his clear preference, he adopted criminal means proposed by the woman he did not want to lose. This describes and to some extent explains what occurred. It is no justification.

Statutory and other considerations

I do not treat as an aggravating circumstance of this crime either of the matters referred to in pars (b) and (g) of s 21A(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). That is, the use of violence and the infliction of substantial harm. Those features were inherent in the offence of murder and to treat them as aggravating would be to double count.
The murder in this case involved the use of a stupefying drug (par (cb) of s 21A(2)). I have already mentioned that it was committed in company (par (e)) and was part of a planned criminal activity (par (n)). The fact that the victim was killed in his own home is also aggravating (par (eb)). These factors are aspects of the objective seriousness of the offence to which I attach significance.
With respect to the statutory mitigating factors in s 21A(3) the offender is entitled to credit for the absence of any relevant prior convictions (par (e)) and for his prior good character (par (f)). It is highly unlikely he would reoffend. There would never be repetition of the circumstances which led to this extreme aberration from his good character, even if he were at liberty. Given the length of the sentence which I must impose taking into account all other considerations, the possibility of reoffending is all the more unlikely. His prospects of rehabilitation (par (h)) are good, notwithstanding his obstinacy in denying his crime.
The offender has shown no remorse. He continues to disclaim responsibility for the death of Alois Rez. This has led him also to deny knowledge of the location of the body. The consequence is ongoing pain for relatives of the deceased.
Victim impact statements of Zonia Rez, the deceased's mother, Arthur Smart, his brother, and Anne Smart, his sister, were read at the sentence hearing pursuant to s 28 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The statements attest to positive aspects of the deceased's character and his close family bonds. The loss inflicted upon these family members by the killing of Alois Rez is starkly brought out by their impact statements. A further victim impact statement was read by the deceased's aunt, describing the effect on the four young children of the victim, deprived of their father. They will be deprived of their mother as well because she will be imprisoned for manslaughter. Raymond Roff has wreaked a catastrophe on these four young innocents.
This is Raymond Roff's first time in prison. Discomfort from his work injury earlier referred to will likely worsen with advancing years and will be harder to cope with in prison than it would be under the care he could receive outside the corrective system. I have regard to these factors towards lenience for such weight as I can give them.

Reasons for exceeding standard non-parole period

The sentence I am about to impose will include a non-parole period which exceeds the statutory standard of 20 years referred to at [4]. My reasons for fixing a longer non-parole period are, principally, 1. the aspects of objective seriousness referred to at [41]; 2. the aggravating features referred to at [46] and 3. the absence of remorse or of acknowledgement of his crime, as referred to at [48].
In determining to set a non-parole period longer than the standard, I have evaluated the considerations listed in the preceding paragraph, for the purposes of s 54B(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, and in the context of the entirety of the features of the case referred to in these remarks.

Relationship between non-parole period and balance of term

I do not find any special circumstances under s 44(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act which would require that the balance of term of the offender's sentence should exceed one third of the non-parole period which I intend to fix. The uniqueness of the circumstances which led to commission of this crime, the absence of any relevant prior criminal record and the improbability of re-offending make it unnecessary to provide for an extended period of parole during which he could be supervised by Community Corrections.

Consistency with sentences in comparable cases

The Crown cited two sentence decisions in cases where murders were carried out with the assistance of a co-offender in a premeditated and carefully planned fashion for financial gain or to eliminate a marital partner. Also cited were four instances of sentencing for the premeditated murder of a wife, de facto partner or girlfriend without the involvement of a co-offender. I have considered the objective and subjective factors taken into account in each of these decisions and in remarks on sentence in other cases of which I am aware. I have not identified any cases containing a significant combination points of comparability with the sentencing considerations identified in these remarks. There is thus no reference point for making a comparison in pursuit of consistency.

Firearms offence taken into account

When Raymond Roff was arrested police found in his possession 3 air rifles and 10 other rifles including one repeating weapon. Most of these firearms were found on top of a wardrobe in an outhouse or shed on the residential property where he lived in Dubbo. The repeating rifle was in a cupboard in the main residence. None of the weapons were secured or safely stored. On 10 August 2013 he was charged with an offence of failing to keep firearms safely contrary to s 39(1)(a) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). In relation to weapons of the type concerned here, this offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment or 20 penalty units ($2,200) or both. The offender has agreed to have the offence taken into account in his sentence for murder on a Form 1 pursuant to s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
He has one prior firearms offence. Namely that in 1981 he discharged rifle near a public place. His account of this is that in a situation of escalating violence he fired into the air to bring a group of people to their senses. He then reported himself immediately to police and handed in the weapon. In the Local Court at Dubbo a bond was imposed. I do not regard the prior offence nor anything else on his record as disentitling him from lenience in respect of the offence now charged relating to the manner in which he kept guns at his home in 2013.
I will take the offence into account, as asked. I consider that this makes no significant difference to the sentence that I would have imposed in any event. The Crown did not submit that it should have a large impact. In the absence of any aggravating circumstances the offence would likely have been dealt with adequately by way of a bond if it had been disposed of in the Local Court. The guns were not in a situation where children might gain access to them and harm themselves, for example, or where people with criminal or violent intentions might become aware of them and use them to harm others.

Second firearms offence, separately dealt with

Arising out of the finding of the weapons referred to at [55] Roff was also charged with possession of unauthorised firearms contrary to s 7A(1) Firearms Act. The charge has been transferred to this Court pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment. Possession of these weapons was unauthorised in that he held no licence or permit for them. The police statement of facts does not suggest any aggravating circumstance such as an intention to deal with the guns or involvement in any criminal activity in which they might potentially have been used. On the other hand, nor has the offender given any explanation for holding such a number of firearms or failing to take out a licence in relation to any of them.
Ordinarily this charge would have been disposed of in the Local Court, where the maximum penalty would have been 2 years imprisonment or 50 penalty units ($5,500) or both. I consider that a fine of $2000 is the appropriate penalty.

Sentence

The offender has been in custody for a total of 3 years and 10 days, being from his arrest up to today's date. To allow the time served to count the sentence I impose will commence on 9 August 2013, the date of arrest.
The offender is sentenced as follows: 1. For the murder of Alois Rez at Dubbo on 29 July 2013 Raymond Isaac Roff is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 24 years to commence on 9 August 2013 and to expire on 8 August 2037 and a balance of term of 8 years to commence on 9 August 2037 and to expire on 8 August 2045. 2. Raymond Isaac Roff will be eligible for release on parole at the expiry of the non-parole period. 3. Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the offender is notified that the provisions of the Act apply to him and to the offending the subject of these proceedings. 4. For the offence of possessing unauthorised firearms at Dubbo between 9 and 10 August 2013 contrary to s 7A(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Raymond Roff is fined the sum of $2000.

Amendments 20 April 2017 - Heading to [51] and [52] - delete 'are' substitute 'for' 21 April 2017 - Coversheet - file number corrected DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 21 April 2017

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cited By (1)