R v Stensholt - [2014] VSC 668

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0196 of 2013

THE QUEEN

LEAH MARIE STENSHOLT

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Ballarat
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stensholt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 668

---

Murder – Plea of guilty – Victim – Former partner’s mother – Murdered in the sanctuary of her own home – Borderline personality disorder – Verdins principle applicable

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms P. Murphy	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Leah Marie Stensholt, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Carol McDonald and have admitted prior matters.

Carol McDonald was the mother of your former partner, Paul McDonald. You and he had three children together; Jasmine, Patrick and Lauren. You and Paul McDonald formally separated in 2008. There were never any formal court orders with regard to custody of the children, and the custody arrangements between the two of you appear to have been relatively cooperative and amiable.

In 2012, all three children lived with their father, with the younger two – Patrick, then aged eight, and Lauren, then aged six – spending every second weekend with you. On one such weekend in February 2013, you told Paul McDonald that Patrick and Lauren did not want to live with him permanently. Mr McDonald accepted the change in arrangements and, instead, Patrick and Lauren went to him every weekend. At all times, Jasmine, now aged 13, lived with her father and his new partner in Timmering, Victoria.

You first met Paul McDonald in 1999 when you were 28. The relationship developed quickly, and you moved to Moyston with your three eldest children to live with Mr McDonald. You became pregnant with Jasmine, and Mrs McDonald and her husband, Ian, lent you and Paul McDonald $10,000 as a deposit to purchase the house at 24 Campbells Reef Road, Moyston. The relationship between you and Paul McDonald was a volatile one, marked by his heavy drinking. There were a number of separations and reconciliations. Apparently, Mr and Mrs McDonald senior became concerned about losing their $10,000, so a caveat was placed on the property at Campbells Reef Road, and it appears that this was later to become the source of considerable resentment for you.

Paul McDonald attempted to address his drinking. He moved back to Campbells Reef Road and then, thinking that a change was needed, you, as a family, moved to a dairy farm at Kotta, where Patrick was later born, and then to Tongala, where Lauren was born. You suffered serious complications after Lauren’s birth, which was both traumatic and difficult. When you returned home, the relationship again faltered through Paul McDonald’s drinking, and you and he separated. Later, in 2007, you and all of the children moved back to the house at Moyston. There was one further short-lived attempt at…

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 Stensholt

Details

AGLC: R v Stensholt [2014] VSC 668
Case: [2014] VSC 668
Decision Date: 24 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the accused, Stensholt, pleaded guilty to the murder of his former partner's mother. The incident occurred in the victim's own home, a place typically regarded as a sanctuary. The circumstances surrounding the crime and the accused's mental state at the time of the offence were significant factors in the court's consideration of the case. Stensholt had a diagnosed borderline personality disorder, which was relevant to the sentencing phase of the trial.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address involved the appropriate application of the Verdins principle in determining the sentence for the accused. This principle requires the court to consider the degree of moral culpability and the culpability of the offender when determining the appropriate penalty. Given the accused's mental health condition and the nature of the crime, the court was tasked with balancing these factors to arrive at a just outcome. The court also needed to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and her family, as well as the broader community.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and submissions presented to it. It considered the accused's mental health history, the circumstances of the crime, and the impact on the victim's family. The court applied the Verdins principle, taking into account the degree of moral culpability and the offender's culpability. In reaching its decision, the court recognised the accused's mental health condition but ultimately found that it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court sentenced Stensholt to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Orders