DPP v Glascott (Ruling no 3) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1468 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JOHN THOMAS GLASCOTT

Ruling No.3

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 May 2008
DATE OF RULING:	15 May 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Glascott (Ruling No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 242

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – procedure.

---

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.3

HIS HONOUR:

In the circumstances I consider the matter should proceed for the reasons I discussed with Mr Sarah, namely number one, the general position of the accused is that he was not present at the scene and had nothing to do with the shooting, and that has not changed; and second, in the specific matter in relation to enquiring about a gun, the defence position is that the accused did make that enquiry but it was not a serious enquiry and that position has not changed either.

In all the circumstances, assuming that the Presser criteria are satisfied, as Mr Sarah responsibly says he considers they are, I consider the trial ought proceed.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought a ruling from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning the appropriate charge for a defendant, Glascott, in relation to the death of a six-month-old child. The defendant was charged with murder, but the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that the appropriate charge should have been manslaughter. The central issue before the court was whether the appropriate charge for the defendant, in light of the circumstances of the child's death, was murder or manslaughter.

The court considered the definition and elements of murder and manslaughter, as well as the applicable statutory provisions. It was noted that murder requires both an unlawful act and an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The court examined the evidence and circumstances surrounding the death to determine whether the requisite intent was present. The court concluded that the evidence supported a finding that the defendant had the necessary intent to commit murder. The court found that the prosecution could properly charge the defendant with murder based on the circumstances of the case.

The court ruled that the appropriate charge for the defendant was murder, rejecting the submission that the charge should have been manslaughter. The court found that the evidence supported a finding that the defendant had the requisite intent to commit murder. The court considered the severity of the injuries inflicted on the child and the defendant's actions in the context of the case, which supported a charge of murder rather than manslaughter. The court made a ruling that the prosecution could properly charge the defendant with murder.

DPP v Glascott (Ruling no 3)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established