Director of Public Prosecutions v. Glazner - [2001] VSCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 418 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	Appellant
v.
GARY GLAZNER	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 November 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 204

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Being an unlicensed prostitution service provider – Living on earnings of prostitution – Crown appeal against sentence – Sentences of four months’ and six months' imprisonment increased to sentences between nine and 24 months' imprisonment – Fines imposed below not increased – By majority, total effective sentence of 30 months' imprisonment wholly suspended – Prostitution Control Act 1994, ss. 10, 22.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms S. Pullen with Ms F. Walsh	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. with Mr M.T. Rush	Trueman Dawson

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

I agree with Buchanan, J.A. Whilst the sentences his Honour proposes are in no way a guideline, partly because this Court does not give guideline judgments and partly because there is insufficient experience with this legislation, they establish the main point of principle for which Ms Pullen contended. The learned sentencing judge attached manifestly insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offences. The case is not an appropriate vehicle to say anything by way of principle concerning suspended sentences or the imposition of fines.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

After a trial of a little over three weeks the respondent was convicted on five counts of being an unlicensed prostitution service provider contrary to s.22 of the Prostitution Control Act 1994 (“the Act”) (counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and two counts of living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to the provisions of s.10 of the Act (counts 2 and 7). The maximum penalties for an offence against s.22 were three years' imprisonment or a fine of $36,000 or both until s.70 of the Sentencing and Other Acts (Amendment) Act 1997 came into operation on 1 September 1997, when the maximum term of imprisonment was increased to five years. The maximum penalties for an offence against s.10 were four years' imprisonment or a fine of $48,000 or both until 1 September 1997, when the maximum term of imprisonment was increased to five years and the maximum fine was increased to $60,000. Counts 1 and 2 were alleged to have been committed between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1997. The remaining counts were alleged to have been committed in 1998. The sentencing judge, correctly in my view, proceeded upon the basis that the lesser maximum penalties were those relevant to counts 1 and 2.

The respondent was sentenced to a term of four months' imprisonment on each of counts 1 and 2 and to a term of six months' imprisonment on each of counts 3 to 7 inclusive. The difference in the sentences was due to the increase in maximum penalties which preceded the commission of the offences the…

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 Director of Public Prosecutions v. Glazner

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Glazner [2001] VSCA 204
Case: [2001] VSCA 204
Decision Date: 21 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Glazner, the dispute centred on the sentencing of the defendant for operating an unlicensed prostitution service and living on the earnings of prostitution. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The Crown appealed against the original sentences handed down by the lower court, which were four months' and six months' imprisonment respectively. The Crown sought to increase these sentences, arguing they were unduly lenient.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the original sentences were manifestly inadequate and whether the sentences should be increased. The Crown contended that the original sentences did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's crimes, and that the sentences should be increased to serve as a proper deterrent and punishment. The Court needed to balance the need for appropriate sentencing with the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

The majority of the Court found that the original sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate, given the nature and seriousness of the defendant's crimes. The Court increased the sentences to between nine and 24 months' imprisonment for each offence. However, the fines imposed were not increased, and the Court decided to suspend the total effective sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The majority held that the total effective sentence, when suspended, would serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, without unduly harsh consequences for the defendant.

Orders