R v Charlotte Karin Lindstrom - [2008] NSWSC 198

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Charlotte Karin LINDSTROM [2008] NSWSC 198
Hearing dates: 15 February 2008
Decision date: 07 March 2008
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 26 May 2007 and expiring 25 May 2009, the balance of term being 1 year and 10 months expiring on 25 March 2011; eligible for release on 25 May 2009.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – solicit to murder – plea of guilty – exceptional case – level of discount for assistance to authorities – interference with administration of justice – lesser role than principal – psychological factors – 60 percent discount for plea and assistance – special circumstances – unreasonably disproportionate punishment.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bou-Antoun v R [2008] NSWCCA 1
R v AMT [2005] NSWCCA 151
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v M [2005] NSWCCA 224
R v Pang [1999] NSWCCA 4; (1999) 105 A Crim R 474
R v Thomson & Houlton [2000] CCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19
York v R [2005] HCA 60; (2005) 79 ALJR 1919
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Charlotte Karin Lindstrom (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Higgins (Crown)
P Byrne SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nyman Gibson Stewart Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): SC 2007/5877
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to the names, or anything that would identify:1. The intended victims;2. The details of assistance given3. The place in the prison system in which the prisoner is accommodated.

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Sentencing is generally not an easy task. It invariably involves the balancing of competing goals: denunciation, retribution, deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation of the offender. Yet there are times when the task takes on a Herculean proportion; when the circumstances are unique and it is necessary to apply the sentencing principles to an exception. This is such a case. The exception derives from the quantity and quality of assistance given by the offender and the circumstances of her incarceration and life thereafter.
Charlotte Karin Lindstrom adheres in this Court to a plea of guilty originally entered in the Local Court, on the basis of which plea she was committed. The charge to which the plea relates is a contravention of s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 in that between 12 noon on 3 May 2007 and 10.40am on 26 May 2007 she, Charlotte Karin Lindstrom, did solicit an undercover police officer to murder MM.
Further, Ms Lindstrom requests, in a Form 1, that the Court take into account the further offence of solicit to murder DC. Each of the intended victims are proposed witnesses in a trial against Ms Lindstrom’s former boyfriend, Mr Steven Spaliviero, and the offence charged was committed at the same time and in precisely the same circumstances as the offence on 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Charlotte Karin Lindstrom and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 198
Decision Date: 07 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Charlotte Karin Lindstrom, was convicted of soliciting another person to murder an individual. The case came before the court for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence. Lindstrom entered a guilty plea, and the court was required to decide the appropriate level of discount for her plea and assistance to the authorities, as well as the impact of her lesser role compared to the principal perpetrator.

The central legal issue was the extent to which Lindstrom's plea and assistance should be discounted in sentencing, given her involvement in the solicitation of murder. The court considered her role in comparison to the principal, her degree of culpability, and the potential impact of psychological factors. The court also had to assess whether the proposed sentence would be unreasonably disproportionate.

The court found that a 60 percent discount was appropriate for Lindstrom's plea and assistance. It acknowledged her lesser role and the presence of special circumstances, including psychological factors. The court concluded that a lesser sentence would not be unreasonably disproportionate, taking into account all mitigating factors. The final orders reflected this assessment, resulting in a reduced sentence for Lindstrom.

Orders