Legal Research
Cases
Head v Kingdon

Head v Kingdon

Case [2025] VSC 442 22 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0319
S ECR 2022 0320

GEORGIA HEAD	Applicants
ALEXANDRA HEAD
v
TREFOR KINGDON	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Head & Anor v Kingdon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 442

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for compensation orders – Applicants adult children of deceased – Persisting pain and suffering – Financial circumstances of respondent – Previous settlement deed lapsed – Compensation awarded – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 85A, 85B, 85C, 85G, 85H, 85I, 85J and 85K – Application for pseudonym orders – No cogent basis to displace the principle of open justice – Application for pseudonym orders refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Ms A Ryan	Johnstone and Reimer Lawyers
For the Respondent	In person

HER HONOUR:

On 7 July 2025 I heard two applications for compensation orders made pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’) by Ms Georgia Head and Ms Alexandra Head (together, ‘the applicants’).[1] The applicants are the only two children of Ms Mandy Melzer-Head, who was murdered by Mr Trefor Kingdon (‘the respondent’) on 12 May 2020. The respondent was Ms Melzer-Head’s partner at the time of her death.
[1]For convenience, when referring to either applicant individually I will refer to them by their first names only.

Background
Circumstances of the offence

A complete account of the respondent’s offending is set out in the reasons for sentence of Lasry J.[2] For present purposes, I will only provide a brief summary.
[2]DPP v Kingdon [2021] VSC 858. His Honour’s findings also constitute evidence before the Court in the present applications – s 85G(1)(c) of the Act.

The respondent and Ms Melzer-Head, who had briefly been in a relationship in high school, rekindled their relationship following a school reunion in 2018. As at May 2020, the pair were living at a property in Bendoc in East Gippsland.

On the night of 11 May 2020, the respondent, his friend John Osborne, and Ms Melzer-Head were socialising at the Bendoc property. Later in the night and into the early hours of 12 May 2020, after Mr Osborne had gone to bed, there was an argument between the respondent and Ms Melzer-Head and the relationship apparently ended.

The respondent subsequently stabbed Ms Melzer-Head with a kitchen knife 11 times to the chest and back. He alerted Mr Osborne to what he had done, who called triple zero and performed CPR compressions for over two hours. The respondent did not assist with resuscitation efforts but made no attempt to flee or conceal his involvement in the offending.

Procedural history

The respondent was charged with murder on 12 May 2020. On 31 August 2021, the respondent pleaded guilty to that charge before this Court. On 21 December 2021, he was sentenced by Lasry J to 23 years’ imprisonment, with…

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 Head v Kingdon

Details

AGLC: Head v Kingdon [2025] VSC 442
Case: [2025] VSC 442
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case were the adult children of a deceased individual, seeking compensation from the respondent who had been convicted of the deceased's murder. The dispute centred on the determination of compensation under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), specifically sections 85A to 85K, following a previous settlement deed that had lapsed. The applicants argued that they were entitled to compensation for the persisting pain and suffering they experienced as a result of their father's murder, and they requested that the court consider their financial circumstances in making its determination. Additionally, the applicants sought pseudonym orders to protect their identities, arguing that their privacy and safety would be at risk if their names were disclosed in the proceedings.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the calculation of the appropriate compensation amount for the applicants' persisting pain and suffering, and whether the financial circumstances of the respondent should be taken into account in determining the compensation. The court was also required to consider the applicants' request for pseudonym orders, weighing the principle of open justice against the applicants' need for privacy and protection from potential harm.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the applicants were entitled to compensation for their persisting pain and suffering, taking into account their financial circumstances. The court found that the respondent's financial situation was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate amount of compensation, as it was unable to pay a significant sum in one lump sum. The court awarded compensation to the applicants, ensuring that their ongoing suffering was recognised and compensated. Regarding the application for pseudonym orders, the court found that there was no cogent basis to displace the principle of open justice. The court concluded that the applicants' need for privacy and protection did not outweigh the importance of open and transparent legal proceedings, and therefore refused the application for pseudonym orders.

The court's final orders included the awarding of compensation to the applicants, taking into account their financial circumstances and the respondent's ability to pay. The court also refused the applicants' request for pseudonym orders, upholding the principle of open justice in the legal process.

Orders