DPP v Glascott
[2008] VSC 236
•30 June 2008
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1468 of 2007
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOHN THOMAS GLASCOTT |
---
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 June 2008 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 June 2008 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Glascott (Sentence) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2008] VSC 236 | |
---
Criminal law and procedure – sentencing – murder – deceased former solicitor of accused – considerations applicable – general deterrence in relation to the caring professions.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr G Horgan SC with Ms S Borg | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R Sarah | Slades & Parsons Solicitors |
---
HIS HONOUR:
Mr Glascott, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder at Fairfield on 10 June 2006 of David Meredyth Robinson. Mr Robinson was an honourable and hard-working solicitor and an officer of this Court. You were a former client. You had brooded with resentment for years over what you considered were injustices caused to you by the legal system and by your former solicitor, Mr Robinson. There had been no injustice to you. Mr Robinson had acted for you properly and loyally. But you perceived injustice and set out to punish Mr Robinson. On a cold and windy mid-winter night, Monday 10 July 2006, you went to Mr Robinson’s solicitors’ office at Station Street, Fairfield intending to burn the premises down. You did not go there intending to murder Mr Robinson; indeed you expected no-one to be at the premises. You contemplated your activity for some time in the vicinity. You then, shortly after 8.00pm, attempted to set fire to the premises at the front. When that attempt failed, you went to the rear of the premises, broke two glass bricks in the rear wall and attempted to set fire to the premises at the rear. In the course of doing so you were discovered by Mr Robinson.
Mr Robinson that Monday had done his usual day’s work at his office. He went home for dinner with his family. After dinner, one of his sons asked Mr Robinson to take him into work to process a Year 12 assignment. Without hesitation Mr Robinson agreed. That is what loving parents do, and that is what Mr Robinson did. They arrived at the front of the office and entered. It was evident that some interference had occurred. The son commenced processing his school project, having no knowledge of what or who was at the rear of the premises. Mr Robinson had no knowledge either. He rang his wife at home and then went to the rear of the premises to investigate.
When Mr Robinson reached the rear he saw you. He of course recognised you. You would have been identified as an attempted arsonist. But you had brought with you to the scene a loaded and deadly automatic Russian pistol. In your malevolence and in order to avoid exposure and apprehension you resorted to murder. You repeatedly shot at Mr Robinson, fatally striking him once to the chest. You struck him over the head with the pistol. Mr Robinson, fatally injured, staggered down the rear lane and collapsed on a nearby grass verge. The malevolence of your attack and pursuit is well described by a witness:
“As I was crossing the road, I seen a guy stagger out into the middle of the road … I seen another guy sort of prancing around him with a gun for, I don’t know, no more than two seconds.”
…
“What was he doing with the gun? -- Just sort of running at him sort of to get a proper look at him to make sure he’s shot him properly, that’s what it looked like to me.”[1]
You then slipped away into the night. Having responded immediately to her husband’s telephone call, Mrs Helen Robinson arrived at the scene and tended her husband. Mr Robinson, aged 56 years, husband, and father of three fine children, died on that grass verge.
[1]T.384; 386-387.
Fortunately, alert local citizens and thorough police investigation led to the discovery of the perpetrator.
When interviewed by police, you declined to answer questions, as was your right. Before the jury in your trial in this Court, you did not give evidence, as is your right.
Your defence at trial, ably and properly put by your lawyers, was that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant was you. The jury rejected that defence and found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant was you.
The genesis of your brooding resentment was family law proceedings between you and your former wife and in which Mr Robinson had acted as your solicitor. The proceedings occurred in 2000 and 2001. In your perception they demonstrated the failure of the legal system and of Mr Robinson in particular to secure your interests. In truth the results were just. Thereafter there were extensive access proceedings concerning a child of that marriage. Throughout those proceedings you acted in an aggressive, manipulative and self-centred manner. Those issues continued until the murder. The final access hearing was due on 18 July 2006, eight days after you murdered Mr Robinson. Mr Robinson was not acting for you in those proceedings but you held him responsible for the initial property result, and the continuing access issues fuelled the fire within you. Thus it was you attended Mr Robinson’s solicitors’ office that Monday night, intent on punishing him by fire, and armed with a loaded and deadly pistol. The Tokarev pistol and ammunition with which you were armed had been illegally acquired by you after lengthy and complex endeavour which endeavour showed constant application of mind by you. If you had not taken the pistol to Fairfield that Monday night, Mr Robinson would still be alive.
Tendered by the prosecution on the plea were six victim impact statements: of Mrs Helen Robinson, wife of the deceased; of their three sons, Thomas, now aged 21 years, Nicholas, now aged 20 years, and Hugh, now aged 16 years; of the sister-in-law of the deceased, Mrs W.D. Robinson; and of the brother of the deceased, Mr K.C. Robinson. I have read, and reread, those statements. They are most moving and impressive documents. Before the jury, Mrs Robinson, Nicholas and Hugh gave evidence. They conducted themselves with bravery and dignity. I commend the Robinson family.
Mr Glascott, you were born on 18 December 1963 and are now 44 years of age. At the time of the offence you were 42 years of age. You are one of eleven children and in adult life have worked in various capacities including train station assistant and clairvoyant. You were married in September 1993 and later divorced. There was one child of the marriage. It was the property settlement from that dissolution which was the genesis of the matter now before this Court, continued through the access disputation as to the child of that marriage.
You are an intelligent, unstable, and aggressive person. Your dealings with your former wife and her family, and their legal counsel, amply demonstrate those characteristics. You have a number of previous convictions. The relevant convictions are three convictions in May 1983 of imposition, for which ultimately you were placed on a good behaviour bond for twelve months; a conviction in April 1985 of being in possession of property suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, for which you were placed on probation for two years; a conviction in September 1991 of making a false report to police, for which you were fined $500.00; and a conviction in February 1993 of being employed as an unlicensed agent and for which you were fined $500.00.
You have an extensive medical history. On the plea comprehensively made on your behalf by your counsel, a substantial body of material was tendered. In considering sentence I have had central regard to it. Historical but relevant material is contained in the Mont Park Hospital discharge summary of 22 March 1985 (exhibit 7 on the plea); report of Dr G R Croft, psychiatrist, Mont Park Hospital, of 21 July 1986 (exhibit 5 on the plea); report of Dr K Mack, psychiatrist, of 18 June 2001 (exhibit 3 on the plea); report of Dr D Lipson, general practitioner, of 3 October 2001 (exhibit 4 on the plea); report of Dr H Anderson, North Western Mental Health Sunshine Adult Acute Psychiatric Unit of 13 April 2006 (exhibit 6 on the plea); report of Mr J Drury, neuropsychologist, of 20 April 2005 (exhibit 2 on the plea); and report of Dr L Walton, psychiatrist, of 2 June 2008 (exhibit 1 on the plea). No witnesses, expert or otherwise, were called on your behalf on the plea.
It is evident from those reports that you have a lengthy medical history. You attempted suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning in January 1985. Following the 1985 attempted suicide, you have suffered cognitive defects as the result of brain damage in the region of the globus pallidus bilaterally and the right corona radiata. The principal consequence of this injury is in the area of memory, and also in new learning. However, as noted by the clinical neuropsychologist who examined you on 17 April 2008, Mr J Drury, in his report (p.8) you have “satisfactory cognitive skills across several measures, including verbal reasoning and social judgment”. Mr J Drury reported that you have deficits in short‑term memory and new learning. You were noted to exhibit no evidence of psychosis, depression or suicidal ideation upon admission in 1985 to the Mont Park Psychiatric Hospital. In April 2006 you were admitted to Sunshine Adult Acute Psychiatric Unit as a possible suicide risk, where you remained for six days and were then discharged. It is clear that you have suffered depression over many years. A distinguished psychiatrist, Dr L Walton, in his report of 2 June 2008 following a review of the medical history and examination of you on 9 April 2008 concluded as follows (p.3):
“What can be stated unequivocally is that Mr Glascott is a brain-injured individual. It seems highly likely that he was suffering from significant depressive problems prior to the assault upon his brain with carbon monoxide and there have been recurring depressive problems thereafter, more than likely aggravated by the brain injury.
It does seem that Mr Glascott has become increasingly paranoid in more recent years. I suspect that this is a belated consequence of his brain injury as well, as he does not seem to have been observed at any stage in a state of full-blown psychosis.
Simply given the duration of this man’s psychiatric symptoms, it can be safely concluded that he was mentally compromised at the material time.
There was an air of unreality about Mr Glascott’s sense of wellbeing at the time of my assessment. I strongly suspect that in the aftermath of his being convicted and sentenced, he will experience another bout of depression necessitating active treatment.
The combination of this man’s chronic depression, brain injury and paranoia, in my opinion, would allow a sentencer to rely upon the principles enunciated in Verdins et al.”
I have had careful regard to the opinion of Dr Walton. However, I regret to say that the generality of his opinion (“It does seem that Mr Glascott has become increasingly paranoid in more recent years” and “it can be safely concluded that he was mentally compromised at the material time”) renders it of limited utility. I conclude particularly on the specialist evidence and also having regard to the general evidence that you at the relevant time (July 2006) suffered depression and had some cognitive deficits but that you were fully aware of what you were doing and had full control over what you were doing. In particular you were fully aware of, and had full control of, your acquisition of the Russian pistol and its ammunition, your taking it to Station Street fully loaded, your two attempts to set fire to the solicitor’s premises, your shooting of and assault upon Mr Robinson in order to avoid identification and apprehension, and your flight from the scene. At all times you fully knew the wrongfulness of your conduct. It has not been established that you now are, or ever were, psychotic.
In all the circumstances I have moderated the sentence to be imposed upon you by reason of your medical history and condition, but do not conclude under well-known principle[2] that general deterrence does not apply or should be moderated in this instance.
[2]See generally R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398, R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 at [26] per curiam, R v Howell (2007) 16 VR 349 at [24] per Nettle JA and in whose judgment Ashley and Redlich JJA agreed, and R v Tran [2008] VSCA 80 at [31] per Ashley JA (Buchanan JA agreeing and Forrest AJA contra).
Further, I consider that general deterrence has an especial application in this case. That is because resentful persons who seek to punish the caring professions should themselves be discouraged by the law from doing so. It is the proper task of caring professions – lawyers, doctors, welfare persons and many others – to care for unstable persons, which persons can be resentful, brooding and aggressive. As you were. It is the function of the law to protect those caring professions from that incident of their good work.
Of the sentencing principles that apply to you, moderated by your medical history and condition, the principles of condemnation, punishment, general deterrence and special deterrence apply to you. Rehabilitation always is important and it is so here.
I declare pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, that you have served 720 days in pre-sentence detention under the sentence I impose and I so certify.
Mr Glascott, for the murder of David Meredyth Robinson I sentence you to 28 years’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term of 24 years’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
Remove the prisoner.
---
4
0