R v Diver - [2008] VSC 399

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1656 of 2008

THE QUEEN

GLENN WILLIAM DIVER

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 September 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Diver
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 399

---

Criminal law – Murder – Plea – Prisoner strangled his de facto in their home – Deceased had two teenage sons, one of whom is disabled – Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C. Barbagallo	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. O’Connell	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Glenn William Diver, on 7 May 2008 you pleaded guilty before me to the murder of Cheryl Ann Haynes on 29 May 2007.

At about 11.20 a.m. on 29 May 2007 you killed Ms Haynes, your partner for the last two years, by strangling her with your hands and later with the cord from your dressing gown which you tied tightly around her neck.

Your son, Cody, was at home at the time of the murder, but at the other end of the house. You took your son to his grandmother’s, Ann Graham’s house. Ms Graham was the mother of your former de facto partner, Laurie Graham, who is Cody’s mother. You gave Ann Graham $1,000 and left Cody there. The $1,000 had been withdrawn from an account in Ms Haynes’ name.

You told Ms Graham you were in serious trouble and left. That was shortly before midday. Shortly after midday, you went to the Croydon Police Station, where you told police that you had killed Cheryl Ann Haynes by strangling her.

You were arrested and police inquiries commenced.

You had an injury to your right hand, which probably occurred as a result of you striking Ms Haynes, but you have never acknowledged doing so.

You were interviewed first by Ringwood detectives, and later by the members of the Homicide Squad. Sixty-six minutes of interview were spread over about eight hours.

You gave a version of events which seems to accord to a large degree with surrounding circumstances. The family movement on the morning of 29 May had not been out of the ordinary, except that your son, Cody, did not go to school because the rest of his class was away on a school camp and your daughter, Emma, was away on a school camp. Ms Haynes had taken her son, Matthew, to school and returned to put her other son, Steven on the bus to go to school.

You said that after Ms Haynes returned from taking her son to school, there had been a fight between you about money and the children. You smoked cannabis at some time during the morning.

The argument went on for some time, but was interrupted a few times. At about 11.10 a.m., Ms Haynes spoke to her brother, Peter Fry, and…

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 R v Diver

Details

AGLC: R v Diver [2008] VSC 399
Case: [2008] VSC 399
Decision Date: 24 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Diver, the defendant was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Diver, was found guilty of murdering his de facto partner by strangling her in their home. The victim had two teenage sons, one of whom has a disability. Diver was subsequently sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant’s culpability, and the impact of the offence on the victim’s family. The court also took into account the defendant’s guilty plea and the fact that he had no prior criminal record. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, given the gravity of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the significant impact of the offence on the victim’s family, particularly her disabled son.

The court emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from further harm. The court also noted that the sentence should be proportionate to the defendant’s culpability and the circumstances of the case. In this case, the court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the defendant’s culpability and the circumstances of the case, and that it achieved the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Diver be sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The court also ordered that Diver be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of five years following his release from prison. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community for the defendant, and the need to provide support to the victim’s family, particularly her disabled son.

Orders