R v Glanville - [2010] NSWSC 364

CITATION: R v Glanville [2010] NSWSC 364

HEARING DATE(S): 02/11/09-20/11/09, 12/02/10, 16/04/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF: James J

DECISION: The prisoner is sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of five years commencing on 20 June 2007 and expiring on 19 June 2012 and a balance of the term of one year eight months. The earliest date on which the prisoner will be eligible for release on parole will be 19 June 2012.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING — manslaughter — excessive self-defence — substantial impairment by abnormality of mind

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Crimes Act
Criminal Procedure Act

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina
David Glanville

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/4743

COUNSEL: J Pickering - Crown
M J Johnston - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Nyman, Gibson & Stewart

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

FRIDAY 7 MAY 2010

2009/4743 R v DAVID GLANVILLE
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 2 November 2009 David Glanville, also known as David Saliba, to whom I will refer to as “the prisoner”, was indicted before me on a charge that on 20 June 2007 at Claymore he murdered Justin Summers (“the victim”). When indicted, the prisoner pleaded not guilty of murder but added “guilty of manslaughter”. The Crown prosecutor informed the Court that the Crown would not accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter in discharge of the indictment. A trial of the prisoner on the charge of murdering the victim then proceeded.

2 At the conclusion of the trial the jury, after a long retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty of murder and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The foreman of the jury in announcing the verdict of guilty of manslaughter added the words “by unlawful and dangerous act”. In sentencing the prisoner I am, of course, bound by the jury’s verdicts that he is guilty only of manslaughter.

3 The evidence at the trial is, of course, available to be used in the proceedings on sentence. The additional evidence in the proceedings on sentence was:-

For the Crown — A pre-sentence report, a criminal history of the prisoner and four victim impact statements from members of the victim’s family, being his mother, his grandmother, his father and stepmother and his sister.

In the victim impact statements members of the victim’s family described the great sense of loss and bereavement they have suffered because of the victim’s death. I have taken the victim impact statements into consideration in the sentencing of the prisoner.

1. A letter from the prisoner to the court dated 15 April 2010.

2. A Certificate of Achievement earned by the prisoner for completing an alcohol and other drug relapse prevention program while he has been in custody.

3. Letters from his solicitors, including a letter in March 2009 to the Director of Public Prosecutions informing the Director of an offer by the prisoner to plead guilty to manslaughter on the…

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 Glanville

Details

AGLC: R v Glanville [2010] NSWSC 364
Case: [2010] NSWSC 364
Decision Date: 7 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Glanville came before the court where the defendant, Glanville, was charged with manslaughter. The circumstances of the case involved Glanville fatally stabbing a person during an altercation. The crux of the dispute was whether the actions of Glanville were justified under the doctrine of excessive self-defence and whether he suffered from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his self-control at the time of the offence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Glanville's actions constituted excessive self-defence and whether an abnormality of mind substantially impaired his self-control, potentially mitigating his culpability. The court was required to consider the principles of self-defence, the proportionality of Glanville's response to the perceived threat, and the impact of any mental abnormality on his capacity for self-control.

In examining the evidence, the court noted that Glanville had acted in response to a perceived threat, but his response was disproportionate to the danger he faced. The court concluded that while Glanville's actions were in response to a threat, they exceeded what was reasonably necessary for self-defence. Regarding the issue of abnormality of mind, the court found that Glanville did suffer from a mental condition that substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control, although this did not absolve him of responsibility for the crime. The court balanced these factors and determined that the mitigating effect of the mental condition warranted a reduced sentence.

The court sentenced Glanville to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating effect of the mental condition but also recognising the seriousness of the offence. The final orders of the court were that Glanville be detained in custody for a specified term, reflecting the court's consideration of both the excessive nature of the self-defence and the mitigating impact of the mental impairment.

Orders