R v Glen - [1999] NSWSC 1018

R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018 (1 October 1999)

Last Updated: 8 October 1999

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): L00009/93

HEARING DATE{S): 1/10/99

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/10/1999

PARTIES:

David Jack Glen

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

COUNSEL:

Crown: R.D. Ellis

Applicant: M. Ramage QC

SOLICITORS:

P.Thompson

T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:

Appliction dismissed. I direct that the applicant may present a fresh application under s13A at a date not earlier than a date 18 months from today. To that extent th eperiod of two years otherwise applicable is reduced.

JUDGMENT:

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

BAILS/CRIMINAL

WOOD CJ AT CL

FRIDAY 1 OCTOBER 1999

L00009/93- DAVID JACK GLEN

JUDGMENT - On application for redetermination of Life Sentence

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant seeks a redetermination of a life sentence imposed upon him by me on 22 December 1986 following his conviction for murder. He has now served 14 years of that sentence, calculated from the time of his arrest. The present application was filed on 12 October 1993, within days of the eighth anniversary of his arrest, from which time his custody began.

2 Although he is not to be criticised for seeking to exercise his legal rights, the filing of an application upon that date, in a case involving the hideous circumstances of the present offence, does provide some measure of his lack of insight and remorse at that time.

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT

3 The date of that application, however, has an additional relevance, since it is his primary application today that the proceedings be adjourned until about June 2000, in order to allow him to complete the full SORT (Sexual Offenders Redirectional Training) programme.

4 It is accepted by counsel for the applicant that the position still is in a state of fluidity, so far as his rehabilitation and responsiveness to the psychological counselling and sexual offender diversionary training is concerned, and will remain so until he completes the full SORT programme.

5 In the alternative to the proceedings being, and in the event of the application being dismissed, it is Mr Ramage's submission that the time for a further application be reduced to something less than the period of two years which would otherwise be applicable.

6 Having regard to the circumstances which will be outlined later in these reasons, I am of the view that it is inappropriate for the application to be further adjourned. It has now been with the Court for almost six years, during which period it was called over twice in 1988 and for a third occasion in May of this year. On those first two occasions, the matter was stood over upon the basis that the application was not ready to be listed. On the third occasion, a similar application was made, but refused by the List Judge.

7 It is 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 Glen

Details

AGLC: R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1018
Decision Date: 01/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Glen was brought before the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Glen, was convicted of manslaughter by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Glen appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the issue of voluntary manslaughter. The appeal was heard by the High Court which was required to determine whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct and whether the conviction should be upheld.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the concept of voluntary manslaughter was legally sound. The court considered whether the trial judge had correctly outlined the elements of voluntary manslaughter and whether the direction was sufficient for the jury to make a proper decision. The court also examined whether the trial judge had provided adequate guidance to the jury on the principles of causation and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In its judgment, the court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in his direction to the jury. The court found that the trial judge's direction did not correctly outline the legal principles governing voluntary manslaughter and that it was insufficient to enable the jury to make a proper decision. The court emphasised that for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation, and that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have acted in the same way. The court also stressed the need for the trial judge to ensure that the jury understood the principles of causation and the standard of proof. Given the errors in the trial judge's direction, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

The High Court ordered that Glen's conviction for manslaughter be quashed and that a new trial be held. The court also provided guidance to the trial judge on the proper direction to the jury on the issue of voluntary manslaughter. The court directed that the trial judge should ensure that the jury understood the elements of the offence, the principles of causation, and the standard of proof required for a conviction.

Orders