R v Glenn - [2005] VSCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 52 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
RYAN MATTHEW GLENN

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT and NETTLE, JJ.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 February 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 31

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Recklessly causing injury and aggravated burglary – Young offender – 15 month suspended sentence – Whether manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan S.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr G.F. Meredith	Dowling McGregor Thomas

VINCENT, J.A.:

I will invite Nettle, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

NETTLE, J.A.:

On 28 January 2004 the appellant and two co-accused were presented before her Honour Judge Pannam in the County Court at Melbourne on charges arising out of offences committed in January 2003. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly causing injury (count 3) and one count of aggravated burglary (count 4). One of the co-accused, Trent Matthew James, pleaded guilty to one count of arson (count 5) and the other, Belinda Joan Harold, pleaded guilty to two counts of theft (counts 1 and 2); one count of recklessly causing injury (count 3); one count of arson (count 5); and one count of possessing a drug of dependence (count 6).

On 12 March 2004, after hearing pleas in mitigation of penalty, the judge sentenced the appellant and his co-offenders as follows:

· The appellant: on the count of recklessly causing serious injury (count 3): 8 months’ imprisonment, and on the count of aggravated burglary (count 4), 15 months’ imprisonment, making for a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment, which her Honour wholly suspended for a period of two years.

· Trent Matthew James: on the count of arson (count 5): 15 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of two years.

· Belinda Joan Harold: on each of the counts of theft (counts 1 and 2): 6 months’ imprisonment; on the count of recklessly causing serious injury (count 3); 15 months’ imprisonment on the count of aggravated burglary (count 4); eight months’ imprisonment; on the count of arson (count 5); 18 months’ imprisonment; and on the count of possessing a drug of dependence (count 6): a fine of $200, thus making for a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, which her Honour wholly

suspended for a period of two years and six months.

On 10 September 2004 Callaway, J.A. granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.

The facts

The offences arose out of the termination of relatively relationship between Belinda Harold and one of the victims, Jarrod Griffin. It had been of short duration, lasting only from November 2001 until 10 December 2002, but it would appear that Harold became very angry when it came to an end and she recruited the appellant and James to assist her to visit vengeance on Jarrod Griffin and other members of his family.…

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 Glenn

Details

AGLC: R v Glenn [2005] VSCA 31
Case: [2005] VSCA 31
Decision Date: 10 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Glenn involved the defendant, Glenn, who was convicted of recklessly causing injury and aggravated burglary. The dispute centered around the sentence imposed on Glenn, which was a 15-month suspended sentence, and whether this was manifestly excessive. The matter was brought before the court of appeal in Australia, where the defendant sought to challenge the sentence's appropriateness.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on Glenn was manifestly excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, particularly in the context of a young offender. The court needed to balance these principles against the specific facts of the case, including the severity of the crimes and Glenn's background.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the circumstances of the offences and Glenn's background. The court acknowledged that the offences were serious, involving significant harm to the victim and a breach of security. However, the court also considered the fact that Glenn was a young offender and had shown remorse. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it provided a balance between the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the original sentence. The decision underscored the importance of considering individual circumstances, including the offender's age and potential for rehabilitation, when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders