Judges question whether Rajwinder Singh’s 25-year non-parole period is too short
Toyah Cordingley's mother wept in court as her daughter's murder case was revisited during an appeal hearing into the conviction of former nurse Rajwinder Singh. Singh is challenging his life sentence and 25-year non-parole period, with his defence arguing the sentence is excessive, whilst judges questioned whether the brutal nature of the crime warranted only the standard minimum sentence of 20 years.
Ms Cordingley, 24, was found buried in sand at Wangetti Beach, approximately 40km north of Cairns, on 22 October 2018, having disappeared during a dog walk the previous day. Singh was convicted in December 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment; he fled to India immediately after the murder but was arrested in New Delhi following a $1 million reward offered by Queensland Police and was extradited to Australia in March 2023. The appeal court will deliver its judgement at a later date.
- Murder conviction appealed; defence argues 25-year non-parole period is excessive
- 24-year-old killed on beach after dog walk; killer fled to India then extradited
- Appeal judges questioned if standard minimum sentence was appropriate for brutal crime
New here? Start with this
Toyah Cordingley was a 24-year-old who disappeared on 21 October 2018 whilst walking her dog near Cairns in Queensland. She was found dead, buried in sand at Wangetti Beach, the following day.
Rajwinder Singh, a former nurse, was convicted of her murder in December 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. After the murder, Singh fled to India, where he was later arrested and extradited to Australia in March 2023.
Singh is now appealing his sentence, which means higher courts are reviewing whether his punishment is appropriate. His case raises questions about what sentences are fair for serious crimes and how courts should balance different factors when deciding penalties.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Singh's defence argues that sentencing must follow established legal principles and guidelines rather than respond to emotional circumstances, however tragic. A life sentence already provides indefinite punishment, and the 25-year non-parole period represents a substantial custodial term consistent with serious crimes. Even in cases of extreme gravity, courts should maintain proportional, predictable sentencing frameworks to protect against arbitrary justice and to preserve rehabilitation as a sentencing objective alongside punishment.
The case against
The judges' concern reflects the principle that sentences must adequately reflect the exceptional brutality of a crime—the premeditated nature, violent manner of death, burial of the victim, and flight to evade justice. Standard minimum sentences may fail to denote the seriousness of offences of particular heinousness or to protect community confidence in the justice system. A longer non-parole period acknowledges that some crimes warrant punishment exceeding established minimums and ensures justice proportionate to the crime's gravity rather than allowing formulaic application of guidelines to override the need for appropriate denunciation.
Art Business Culture Markets World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Heartbreaking scenes in court as former nurse who murdered Toyah Cordingley on a secluded beach appeals his sentence”.