R v Lindholm - [2019] VSC 720

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0107

THE QUEEN

ROBYN LINDHOLM

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 October 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lindholm
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 720

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Joint Criminal Enterprise – Murder of de facto husband – Upper-range example of offence – Offender maintains innocence – No remorse – Offender already undergoing sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years for subsequent murder – Serious violent offender – Principle of totality – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to 28 years’ imprisonment – 14 years concurrent – New non-parole period fixed of 30 years’ imprisonment – Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 – Postiglioni v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 – Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6D, 6E, 14.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Ms C Parkes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Kelly SC with Mr P Bloemen	Leanne Warren and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Robyn Lindholm, after a lengthy trial, you were convicted of the murder of George Templeton (also known as George Teazis) on 3 May 2005. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

Circumstances of Offending

The evening of 2 May 2005 was a special occasion for George, your de facto husband. He planned to mark the anniversary of his father’s death by drinking Metaxa brandy, a favourite of his father’s.[1]
[1]Transcript of Proceedings, R v Lindholm (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2017 0107, Beale J, 8 August 2019) 92 (evidence of Ross Teazis).

This was something George did annually, as you knew, having been George’s partner for approximately seven years. Indeed, at George’s specific request you had purchased the bottle of Metaxa for him.[2]
[2]Transcript of Record of Interview of Robyn Lindholm dated 16 August 2005, Q&A 454, Q&A 469.

George was clearly looking forward to the occasion. At work on 2 May 2005, he told his brother Nick that he had a bottle of Metaxa and that night was “planning on putting a big chunk in it.”[3]
[3]Transcript of Proceedings, R v Lindholm (Supreme Court of Victoria, S CR 2017 0107, Beale J, 9 August 2019) 155 (evidence of Nick Teazis).

You and your close friend, Matilda Burke,[4] prepared the dinner that night for George, at your rented home at 13 Tambo Avenue, Reservoir. Also present were Ross, George’s teenage son, who had been living in the bungalow at the rear of the property for about six months, and Nathan Morris, George’s employee in his carpet laying business. Ross and Nathan ate their meal in the bungalow, where they were playing Xbox.
[4]Pursuant to the proceeding suppression order made by Dixon J on 15 May 2018 under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013, the identity of this witness…

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 Lindholm

Details

AGLC: R v Lindholm [2019] VSC 720
Case: [2019] VSC 720
Decision Date: 7 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lindholm, the defendant was found guilty of the murder of her de facto husband, a crime she committed as part of a joint criminal enterprise. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for Lindholm's role in the murder, considering the principles of totality, her prospects for rehabilitation, and her lack of remorse.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence should reflect the upper range of penalties for murder, given Lindholm's insistence on her innocence and the absence of remorse. Additionally, the court needed to consider Lindholm's concurrent sentence for another murder, which amounted to 25 years with a non-parole period of 21 years. The principle of totality, which seeks to avoid excessive cumulative sentences for related offences, was a significant factor in the court's deliberations. Furthermore, the court had to balance Lindholm's prospects for rehabilitation against her status as a serious violent offender.

The court held that despite Lindholm's assertions of innocence and lack of remorse, the severity of the offence warranted an upper-range sentence. The principle of totality was applied to ensure that the cumulative sentence did not exceed what was proportionate to the crimes committed. Given Lindholm's potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 28 years, with 14 years to run concurrently with her existing sentence. A new non-parole period of 30 years was set, taking into account the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of society. The decision was informed by previous cases such as Mill v The Queen and Postiglioni v The Queen, and relevant statutory provisions under the Sentencing Act 1991.

Orders