DPP v Lindemann - [2024] VSC 220

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0324

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SVEN LINDEMANN

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Lindemann
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 220

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Recklessly causing injury – Offender engaged in frenzied, prolonged attack on partner using six knives – Attack at home, in presence of two young children and partner’s frail mother – Caused knife injuries to 10 year old girl who was trying to defend her mother – No prior convictions – Character evidence – Early plea – No genuine remorse – Prospects of rehabilitation – Importance of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation in cases of family violence – Sentenced to a total effective sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms K Churchill	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Mr Lindemann	Ms L Thies	Furstenberg Law

HER HONOUR:

Sven Lindemann, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your partner, Monique Lezsak, and to recklessly causing injury to her young daughter, Lily,[1] on 30 May 2023.
[1]Pseudonyms have been used for Ms Lezsak’s children, to protect their identities.

Ms Lezsak was 39 years old when you murdered her. Her two children, Lily and Leo, were both 10 at the time.

You and Ms Lezsak first met online in 2014 or 2015, when she bought clothing from an online gym clothing store that you had created. Your relationship began in 2018. At that time, Ms Lezsak was single, but you were still living with your wife and two children in Adelaide.

After a year of pursuing your relationship with Ms Lezsak, you decided to move to Melbourne to be with her in early 2019. You moved into the home owned and occupied by Ms Lezsak’s parents; Ms Lezsak and the twins also lived there.

As your relationship progressed, family and friends noticed growing signs of your jealousy, and conflict within the relationship. You were jealous and insecure about Ms Lezsak’s interactions with other men. Another considerable source of relationship strain centred around the parenting of Ms Lezsak’s children. You took issue with what you perceived to be her lack of structure and routine with the children.

By June 2022, conflict about parenting issues had become a significant problem within the relationship. Ms Lezsak was concerned about your attitude towards her children, and contemplated ending her relationship with you because of the parenting tensions. Ms Lezsak tried very hard to encourage a relationship between you and her children. In the past, you had complained about Lily’s attitude, which resulted in Lily feeling that you didn’t like her very much. You had confided in a friend about the difficulties you experienced in parenting Ms Lezsak’s children. You also felt conflicted about being separated from your…

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 Lindemann

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Lindemann [2024] VSC 220
Case: [2024] VSC 220
Decision Date: 22 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Lindemann involved the sentencing of an individual found guilty of murder and recklessly causing injury with intent. The defendant had engaged in a violent and prolonged attack on his partner, employing multiple knives, in the presence of two young children and the partner's frail mother. This heinous act resulted in severe injuries to the 10-year-old girl who attempted to protect her mother. Despite the defendant having no prior convictions, the attack was both frenzied and deliberate, underscoring the gravity of his actions. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the severity of the crimes, the defendant's lack of remorse, the potential for rehabilitation, and the overarching principles of general deterrence and denunciation in cases of family violence. The court needed to balance these factors to ensure the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the unique circumstances and the impact on the victim and her family. Additionally, the court examined the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's early plea and lack of prior convictions, against the heinous nature of the crime and the presence of vulnerable witnesses.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted the extreme violence and brutality of the attack, noting the defendant's lack of genuine remorse and the absence of any mitigating character evidence. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation in cases of family violence, given the profound impact on the community and the need to protect vulnerable individuals. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence would need to ensure the defendant could not pose a risk to society and would reflect the community's condemnation of such violent acts. Accordingly, the defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 31 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant serve this lengthy sentence, reflecting the court's determination to uphold justice and ensure the safety of the community. The sentence was designed to provide both retribution for the heinous acts committed and to act as a deterrent against similar future crimes, particularly in the context of family violence.

Orders