JUDGES:	PRIEST, KYROU and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 141
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VSC 720 (Beale J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Joint criminal enterprise – Murder of de facto husband – Whether inadmissible evidence led in trial amounted to substantial miscarriage of justice – Unedited telephone intercept inadvertently played to jury – Found that irregularity did not affect outcome of trial – Whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence – Certain witnesses alleged to be unreliable – Found that jury appropriately directed on credibility and reliability – Substantial body of evidence from non-impugned witnesses and forensics pointing to applicant’s guilt – Extension of time granted – Leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 276(1).

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469; [2012] HCA 59, Libke v The Queen (2011) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30, Smith (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2022] VSCA 129 applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J Kelly SC with Ms K Mildenhall
Respondent:		Ms E Ruddle QC with Ms J Warren
Solicitors
Applicant:	Leanne Warren & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA

KYROU JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

In 2005 the applicant, Robyn Lindholm, and George Templeton were cohabiting. They had been partners for about seven years. Templeton planned to celebrate the anniversary of his father’s death on the evening of 2 May 2005. He proposed to do so by consuming ‘a big chunk’ of a bottle of Metaxa spirits. At the time, the couple were living at 13 Tambo Avenue, Reservoir.
The applicant and a friend, Matilda Burke,[1] prepared dinner for the applicant. Also present for the dinner were Ross (Templeton’s teenage son) and Nathan Morris (an apprentice in a carpet business Templeton conducted with his brother, Nick Teazis). These latter two consumed their meal in Ross’ bungalow at the back of the Tambo Avenue house.
[1]Pursuant to the proceeding suppression order made by Jane Dixon J on 15 May 2018 under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013, the identity of this witness has been anonymised in these reasons to protect the safety of the witness.
Templeton became inebriated as the evening developed. He relaxed on a three-seater couch in the lounge room.
The applicant at this time was conducting a secret relationship with one Wayne Amey. Late in the evening, Templeton was drunk and possibly affected by marijuana. The applicant and Burke left the Tambo Avenue house under a pretext that Burke had to return to her house to provide lunch money to her teenage son for his next school…

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 Robyn Lindholm v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robyn Lindholm v The Queen [2022] VSCA 141
Case: [2022] VSCA 141
Decision Date: 20 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robyn Lindholm sought leave to appeal her conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The murder related to the death of her de facto husband. The appeal argued that an irregularity during the trial process led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Specifically, it was contended that the unedited version of a telephone intercept, which was inadvertently played to the jury, along with allegations regarding the unreliability of certain witnesses, undermined the trial's fairness and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The court examined whether the inadvertent presentation of the unedited telephone intercept constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. It considered the potential impact of the error on the jury's decision-making process. The court also assessed the reliability of the witnesses and whether the jury was appropriately directed on the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented. The court noted the substantial body of evidence from non-impugned witnesses and forensic evidence pointing to the applicant's guilt. The court concluded that the irregularity did not affect the outcome of the trial and that the jury was properly directed on the issues of credibility and reliability.

The court found that the verdict was reasonable and could be supported by the evidence. It rejected the contention that the evidence from certain witnesses was unreliable to the extent that it undermined the verdict. The court also noted that the jury was correctly guided on the assessment of witness credibility and reliability. Consequently, the court denied leave to appeal and dismissed the application for an extension of time for the appeal. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders