Glover v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 316

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Glover v R [2016] NSWCCA 316
Hearing dates: 26 October 2016
Date of orders: 21 December 2016
Decision date: 21 December 2016
Before: Gleeson JA
Fagan J
N Adams J
Decision:
1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. Leave is granted to appeal against severity of sentence.
3. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – convicted of causing a child to participate in an act of child prostitution – convicted of exercising lawful control over premises in which a child participated in act of child prostitution – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 91D, 91F – whether duplicity – whether double jeopardy – distinction between elements of each offence – whether evidence supporting one charge was sufficient to procure conviction upon the other charge
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – whether manifest excess
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code (the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995) (Cth)
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Environment Protection Authority v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Nahlous v The Queen (2010) 77 NSWLR 463 [2010] NSWCCA 58
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Dodd (1991) 56 A Crim R 451
The Queen v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55
The Queen v Elrington (1861) 1 B & S 688; 121 ER 870
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Ronald Glover (appellant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Peter Little (appellant)
Mr Eric Balodis (respondent)
Solicitors:
Mr Monty Stidwill, Stidwill Solicitors (appellant)
Mr Craig Hyland, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/201182
Publication restriction: Pursuant to suppression orders made by Bennett DCJ on 1 May 2016 the complainant the subject of counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 is to be referred to as ER for publication purposes, and the complainant the subject of counts 4, 5, 7 – 10 is to be referred to as RE for publication purposes.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Not published

Date of Decision:

06 March 2015

Before:

Bennett DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/201182

Judgment

THE COURT: On 6 March 2015 the appellant, Mark Ronald Glover, was sentenced by his Honour Judge Bennett in the District Court to an aggregate sentence of 10 years imprisonment including a non-parole period of 6 years for ten offences of a sexual nature involving two juvenile female complainants. His Honour had found the appellant guilty on all counts after a judge alone trial over 14 days in May 2014. The appellant now appeals his conviction on some of the counts and seeks leave to appeal the severity of the sentence.

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 Glover v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Glover v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 316
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 316
Decision Date: 21 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of causing a child to participate in an act of child prostitution, as well as exercising lawful control over premises in which a child participated in an act of child prostitution. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The appellant appealed both the conviction and the sentence imposed.

The court was required to consider whether the convictions were affected by the doctrine of duplicity or double jeopardy. The court had to determine if there was a distinction between the elements of each offence and whether the evidence supporting one charge was sufficient to procure conviction upon the other charge. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that there was a distinction between the elements of each offence and that the evidence supporting one charge was not sufficient to procure conviction upon the other charge. Therefore, the convictions were not affected by duplicity or double jeopardy. Regarding the sentence, the court found that it was not manifestly excessive.

The convictions were upheld, and the sentence was affirmed. The court dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.

Orders