DPP v Glascott (Ruling no 2) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION		Not Restricted

No. 1468 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JOHN THOMAS GLASCOTT

Ruling No. 2

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 May 2008
DATE OF RULING:	14 May 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Glascott (Ruling No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 241

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – s.399(5)(b) Crimes Act 1958 not invoked.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr G. Horgan SC and Ms S. Borg	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Sarah	Slades & Parsons

---

RULING NO.2

HIS HONOUR:

Counsel, on the question of the invocation of s.399(5)(b) Crimes Act 1958, I have examined the transcript overnight. The relevant part is the cross-examination of Mr Antonicelli, p.291, lines 21 to 30.

Subject to the benefit of counsel’s submissions, it seems plain to me that the questions there put and the answers there adduced are well within the ambit of s.399(5)(b). That is for the following three reasons: first, their nature and content; second, the parity of reason between one person obtaining a licence, namely Mr Antonicelli, and the other, namely Mr Glascott; and third, because the second personal pronoun "you" comprehends plural as well as singular. However, I would take considerable persuasion to, in the exercise of discretion, permit cross-examination of the accused on his prior convictions on the basis of the questions put at page 291. The breach was a breach but not an egregious breach and in my view the matter should be left there and nothing further said about it.

So unless counsel want to persuade me otherwise I think we should put the matter behind us and proceed without any further reference to the consequences of s.399.

I say that now because there are other matters to be dealt with today and I did not want defence counsel distracted by this matter hanging over his head. Unless Mr Horgan can persuade me otherwise I think we just should put the matter behind us.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Glascott, concerning an appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The appellant, Glascott, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. Glascott appealed on the grounds that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the availability of the partial defence of substantial impairment of mental responsibility under section 399(5)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury on the partial defence of substantial impairment of mental responsibility. The court had to consider whether there was evidence that Glascott suffered from a substantial impairment of mental responsibility at the time of the offence, and if the trial judge should have directed the jury on this defence. The court also considered whether this omission was a significant error that affected the safety of the conviction.

The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Glascott suffered from a substantial impairment of mental responsibility at the time of the offence. The trial judge did not err in not directing the jury on this defence, as there was no basis for it. The court further held that the omission did not affect the safety of the conviction, as the evidence was overwhelming that Glascott intentionally murdered the victim. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

DPP v Glascott (Ruling no 2)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established