Frederick Ronald Sinfield fails to appeal conviction for killing 75-year-old neighbour

A man who raped and murdered his 75-year-old neighbour has failed in an attempt to appeal his conviction for the killing.

Police at the scene of Norma Ludlam’s Hervey Bay home after she was attacked. Photo: Jordan Philp

A man who raped and murdered his frail 75-year-old neighbour has failed in an attempt to appeal his conviction for the killing, with the Court of Appeal finding there was no significant possibility an innocent person had been found guilty.

Frederick Ronald Sinfield is serving a life sentence for the murder of Norma Ludlam who died on July 6, 2015, days after she suffered fatal head injuries in her Hervey Bay home.

Sinfield pleaded not guilty to her murder at a trial in 2019, with the case conducted in a way that left open a possibility for the jury to find that Ms Ludlam could have been killed by an unknown intruder or intruders.

But jurors rejected that proposition, finding beyond reasonable doubt that Sinfield had brutally murdered his older neighbour.

Frederick Ronald Sinfield.

The prosecutor at trial said Sinfield had ingratiated himself with Ms Ludlam in a bid to become her carer and obtain a financial advantage.

He sought to appeal the conviction for murder, arguing it was “unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence”.

But the Court of Appeal comprised of Justices David Boddice, Soraya Ryan and Peter Flanagan unanimously dismissed the appeal in a judgment delivered on Tuesday.

Justice Ryan said upon viewing the evidence as a whole, there was no other reasonable hypothesis than that Sinfield had committed the murder.

“The possibility that someone other than the appellant killed the deceased did not rise above the level of conjecture,” she wrote.

“In my view, the jury’s verdict was a reasonable one, supported by the evidence.

“There is no significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted.”

In October 2019, Sinfield was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility in July 2036 when he is aged 81.

“Whilst there were features of the evidence which could be consistent with the deceased’s residence being the subject of entry by an unknown person at the time the deceased suffered the fatal injuries, an independent assessment of the evidence as a whole supports the conclusion that it was open to the jury to exclude any such hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt,” Justice David Boddice wrote in the judgment.

“Once that hypothesis was excluded, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries to the deceased and that he did so with, at least, an intention to do grievous bodily harm.

“The verdict of the jury was not unreasonable.”