DPP v Kingdon - [2021] VSC 858

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0197

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
TREFOR WILLIAM KINGDON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Lasry J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 December 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kingdon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 858

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Victim the de facto partner of the accused —Accused stabbed deceased 11 times with a kitchen knife — Family violence offending — High degree of moral culpability — Breach of trust — General deterrence — Remorseful — Early plea — Offender 65 years old at the time of sentence — Verdins principles 5 and 6 applicable— No prior convictions — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Previous good character — COVID‑19 pandemic — Standard Sentencing offence — Sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment, with non-parole period of 16 years and 3 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Kristie Churchill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Rishi Nathwani	Galbally O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Trefor Kingdon, on 31 August 2021 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to a charge of murder of Mandy Melzer-Head. That offence was committed by you on 12 May 2020 at Bendoc in the State of Victoria. Ms Melzer-Head had been your partner.

On 14 December 2021, I heard an opening on behalf of the prosecution, victim impact statements and submissions from your counsel Mr Nathwani and Ms Churchill on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed on you.

As is well known, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[1] In addition, murder is a standard sentencing offence under the scheme established by s 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). Under that scheme, the standard sentence for murder is 25 years’ imprisonment which means that under that Act, 25 years imprisonment is the sentence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is legislated to be in the middle of the range of seriousness. It is established by authority that the standard sentence is to be taken into account in the synthesis of factors leading to the imposition of the sentence on you.[2] It is not a mandatory sentence.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 3(1).
[2]Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286, [4] and [44].

It is now my responsibility to sentence you for this very serious offence.

Circumstances of the offending

You are now 65 years of age. Ms Melzer-Head was 63 years of age at the time of her death. You and she first met as students at Doveton High School and had a brief relationship. Ms Melzer-Head was later married to Roderick Head and that marriage lasted for sixteen years until their separation in 2001. You were married to Jennifer Kingdon for 38 years but had separated by October 2018. That separation related to the…

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 DPP v Kingdon

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Kingdon [2021] VSC 858
Case: [2021] VSC 858
Decision Date: 21 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Kingdon, the defendant, Kingdon, was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner, who was stabbed 11 times with a kitchen knife. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on the appropriate sentence to be imposed given the unique circumstances of the case. The legal issues centred around the degree of moral culpability, the breach of trust inherent in the relationship, and the need to balance the principles of general deterrence with the factors of remorse, early plea, and the offender’s age and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court had to weigh the severity of the crime against mitigating factors such as the absence of prior convictions, Kingdon’s age at the time of sentencing, and his apparent remorse. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the administration of justice and its potential effect on the sentence. The principles outlined in Verdins, particularly principles 5 and 6, were also relevant in guiding the court's decision. These principles emphasise the importance of tailoring sentences to the individual circumstances of the offender and the crime, while also considering the broader societal need for deterrence.

After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was 23 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years and 3 months. The court found that the principles of general deterrence and the need to uphold the sanctity of life were paramount, while also acknowledging the mitigating factors presented by the defendant. The sentence reflects a balanced approach, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the broader societal implications of the sentence.

Orders