Legal Research
Cases
R v Holdom

R v Holdom

Case [2018] NSWSC 1677 30 November 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Holdom [2018] NSWSC 1677
Hearing dates: 28 September 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for life

Catchwords: CRIME - sentencing - murder of woman and child -offender sexually assaulted woman and inserted objects into vagina and anus around time of death -photographed sexual assault and body of deceased -attempted to sexually assault woman's 2 year old child then suffocated her - disposed of child's body in suitcase on side of highway - sent text messages to deceased's family to allay suspicion - stole $72,000 from deceased's bank account - guilty plea - no expression of remorse - offender with dysfunctional and abusive childhood - offender with substance abuse disorder - lengthy criminal antecedents including sexual assault of 9-year-old child - not established how offender's childhood beared upon his commission of murders - both murders in top range of objective seriousness - worst case category -culpability so extreme that interests of community protection, retribution, punishment and deterrence can only be met by imposition of life sentences
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Pt 2 Div 3A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 19A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A(g), 21(1), 21A(3)(i), 28(4), 61(1)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Fardon v Attorney General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Judge v R [2018] NSWCCA 203
Knight v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 126; [2006] NSWCCA 292
Olbrich v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 23 May 1994, unrep)
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; 164 A Crim R 252
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA
R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
R v Robinson [2002] NSWCCA 359
R v SLD (2003) 58 NSWLR 589; [2003] NSWCCA 310
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Valera [2002] NSWCCA 50
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 473, 474; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Daniel James Holdom
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Tedeschi AM QC with Ms V Engel (Crown)
Dr G Woods QC with Mr T Woods (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Just Defence

File Number(s): 2015/317223; 2015/367569

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Daniel James Holdom, who is also known as Daniel Marshall and Daniel Bishop, is to be sentenced for the murder of Karlie Jade Pearce-Stevenson in the Belanglo State Forest in the Southern Highlands on 15 December 2008 and for the murder of…

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 R v Holdom

Details

AGLC: R v Holdom [2018] NSWSC 1677
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1677
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard the case of R v Holdom, in which the offender was convicted of the brutal murder of a woman and her young child. The crimes involved heinous acts of sexual assault and violence. The offender had sexually assaulted the woman, inserting objects into her vagina and anus around the time of her death. He had also photographed the sexual assault and the body of the deceased. Additionally, he attempted to sexually assault the woman's two-year-old child before suffocating her and disposing of her body in a suitcase on the side of a highway. The offender stole $72,000 from the deceased's bank account and sent text messages to the deceased's family to allay suspicion. The offender pleaded guilty to the charges but did not express any remorse. The offender had a history of dysfunctional and abusive childhood experiences, substance abuse disorders, and criminal antecedents, including the sexual assault of a nine-year-old child.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the extreme nature of the crimes, the offender's lack of remorse, and his troubled background. The court noted that while the offender's childhood did not directly bear upon his commission of the murders, his culpability was so extreme that the only way to meet the interests of community protection, retribution, punishment, and deterrence was by imposing life sentences. The court found both murders to be in the top range of objective seriousness, placing them in the worst-case category. The court also considered the offender's dysfunctional and abusive childhood, substance abuse disorder, and lengthy criminal antecedents in its sentencing decision.

In light of the extreme nature of the crimes and the offender's lack of remorse, the court imposed life sentences for both murders, with no possibility of parole. The court concluded that the only appropriate sentence in this case was to ensure the community's protection and to provide retribution, punishment, and deterrence. The court noted that the offender's troubled background did not excuse his actions but was a factor that could be taken into account in sentencing. The court found that the interests of justice were best served by imposing life sentences for both murders, with no possibility of parole.

Orders