R v Charlotte Karin LINDSTROM [2008] NSWSC 198

R v Charlotte Karin LINDSTROM [2008] NSWSC 198

Although the intended murders represented a grave planned interference with the administration of justice, Ms Lindstrom was not the principal offender, did not instigate or plan the crime, stood to gain no benefit, was psychologically vulnerable and manipulated, had no prior convictions, showed remorse, pleaded guilty at an early stage and gave rare, exceptional and perhaps unique assistance to authorities at extreme personal risk and under very harsh custody conditions. A 60 percent combined discount for the plea and assistance was justified, and special circumstances justified departure from the statutory ratio, but a non-parole period of less than 2 years would be unreasonably...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Plea of Guilty, With a Further Form 1 Offence Taken Into Account
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 26 May 2007 and expiring 25 May 2009, with a balance of term of 1 year and 10 months expiring on 25 March 2011; eligible for release on 25 May 2009.
Legal Topics
['solicit to Murder' 'plea of Guilty' 'assistance to Authorities' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'interference With Administration of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['solicit to Murder' 'plea of Guilty' 'assistance to Authorities' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'interference With Administration of Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Plea of Guilty, With a Further Form 1 Offence Taken Into Account

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for soliciting an undercover police officer to murder a proposed witness, with a further offence of soliciting the murder of another proposed witness taken into account on a Form 1.' "What discount should be allowed for the accused's early plea of guilty and exceptional assistance to authorities." "Whether the accused's lesser role, psychological conditions, remorse, lack of prior convictions, harsh custody conditions and future witness protection consequences justified special circumstances and a departure from the statutory ratio between non-parole and parole periods." 'Whether a sentence below a 2 year non-parole period would be unreasonably disproportionate to the offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the intended murders represented a grave planned interference with the administration of justice, Ms Lindstrom was not the principal offender, did not instigate or plan the crime, stood to gain no benefit, was psychologically vulnerable and manipulated, had no prior convictions, showed remorse, pleaded guilty at an early stage and gave rare, exceptional and perhaps unique assistance to authorities at extreme personal risk and under very harsh custody conditions. A 60 percent combined discount for the plea and assistance was justified, and special circumstances justified departure from the statutory ratio, but a non-parole period of less than 2 years would be unreasonably...

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 26 May 2007 and expiring 25 May 2009, with a balance of term of 1 year and 10 months expiring on 25 March 2011; eligible for release on 25 May 2009.

Orders

  • ['Charlotte Karin Lindstrom is convicted of an offence under section 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 for soliciting an undercover police officer to murder MM between 12 noon on 3 May 2007 and 10.40am on 26 May 2007.' 'For that offence, taking into account the offence on the Form 1, Charlotte Karin Lindstrom is sentenced...