AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 5 June 2026

Holdom v R

[2026] NSWCCA 70

Homicide
CRIMINAL APPEAL APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE TERRIBLE NATURE OF A LIFE SENTENCE WHETHER PLEA S OF GUILTY DISREGARDED

Citation: Holdom v R [2026] NSWCCA 70
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 5 June 2026
Judges: N Adams CJ at CL, Hamill J, Muston J

Background

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court in 2018 to the murders of a woman and her 2½ year old daughter, both committed in December 2008. The first victim's remains were found in Belanglo State Forest in 2010 but not identified until 2015. The second victim's skeletal remains were discovered inside a suitcase on a South Australian highway in July 2015. The sentencing judge, RA Hulme J, found the second murder was committed to cover up the first, and that both offences involved sexual overtones.

The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of his natural life for each offence under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). In the years following the murders, he took active steps to make it appear the victims were still alive, including using the first victim's mobile phone to contact her family and making fraudulent use of her bank account.

The appellant had suffered serious physical and sexual abuse at the hands of his stepfather during childhood. A psychiatrist, Dr Nielssen, gave evidence that this abusive background was causally connected to the commission of the offences. The sentencing judge accepted the abuse occurred but did not accept the causal connection on the balance of probabilities. The appellant sought leave to appeal out of time, explaining the delay by reference to depression following the imposition of the sentences.

  • Whether the sentencing judge erred in rejecting Dr Nielssen's psychiatric opinion that the appellant's childhood abuse was causally connected to the murders
  • Whether the sentencing judge gave proper consideration to the pleas of guilty
  • Whether the sentencing judge gave proper consideration to the appellant's background and subjective circumstances
  • Whether the life sentences were manifestly excessive such that a different sentence was warranted at law

Decision

On the psychiatric evidence (Ground 3), the Court held it was reasonably open to the sentencing judge to reject Dr Nielssen's opinion as to causal connection. The expert had relied on the appellant's own account of the offences, which the sentencing judge found to be inaccurate, incomplete and deficient. Critically, the sentencing judge did not disregard Dr Nielssen's findings about the appellant's history of abuse, accepting that the childhood was indeed marked by violence, but gave adequate reasons for rejecting the contested causal opinion on the balance of probabilities.

On the pleas of guilty (Ground 1), the Court found the sentencing judge expressly took them into account and was conscious they were a relevant factor. The remarks on this topic were described as sparse, but the pleas carried utilitarian value in sparing witnesses and secondary victims from reliving the details in a contested trial. The Court confirmed, consistent with established authority, that a life sentence may still be imposed notwithstanding a plea of guilty.

On the question of manifest excess (Grounds 1, 2 and 4, considered together), the Court emphasised that the applicable question is not whether the Court or any of its members would have imposed a different penalty, but whether the decision was manifestly unreasonable, plainly unjust, or wrong. The Court found that the facts and circumstances of each murder placed them at or near the highest end of seriousness for homicide offences. Considered together, the two murders represented a level of criminality and depravity the Court described as rarely encountered.

The Court acknowledged that the appellant's childhood abuse was the most significant factor militating against life sentences, and that counsel for the appellant presented powerful arguments on this basis. Nonetheless, all three judges concluded it remained reasonably open to the sentencing judge, having weighed those subjective matters, to be satisfied that the threshold under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was met. The decision was not plainly wrong, manifestly unreasonable, or unjust.

Orders Made

  • Time to file the notice of appeal extended to 11 November 2025
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • A sentencing judge may reject a psychiatric opinion on causation where the expert relied on an inaccurate or incomplete account provided by the offender, provided the judge accepts the underlying factual findings about the offender's history that are supported by independent evidence.
  • Life sentences under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) are described in the case law, and confirmed here, as an extreme and "terrible" outcome, but their imposition is not foreclosed by a guilty plea or a powerful subjective case involving childhood trauma.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the appellate standard on a sentence appeal requires a finding that the sentence was manifestly unreasonable, plainly unjust, or wrong. The question is not whether the appellate court would itself have imposed a different penalty.
  • Where two murders are considered together and each independently reaches the highest range of objective seriousness, the combined level of criminality may satisfy the statutory language required for a life sentence even where significant mitigating factors are present.
  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court noted the harm caused to secondary victims was described by the sentencing judge as substantial but otherwise unquantifiable, and that this harm was compounded by the lengthy delays in discovering and identifying the remains.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 61(1)

Cases:
- House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
- Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
- Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
- Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
- R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
- Knight v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
- Dean v R [2015] NSWCCA 307
- Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
- Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
- Hancock v R [2025] NSWCCA 213
- CC v R; R v CC [2021] NSWCCA 71; (2021) 289 A Crim R 453
- R v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 23 May 1994, unrep)
- R v Holdom [2018] NSWSC 1677