Criminal law – Sexual offences against children – Pre-trial publicity – Whether trial to be stayed – Adverse publicity during trial – Whether jury to be discharged – Severance – Propensity evidence – Whether rightly admitted – Directions concerning such evidence – Collusion – Innocent infection – Longman warning – When required – Whether sufficient – Proximate complaint – Absence of proximate complaint – Alleged failure of prosecution to call relevant witnesses – Jones v. Dunkel direction – Two presentments – Re-trial directed on second presentment – Sentence of eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment affirmed on first presentment – Non-parole period of six-and-a-half years fixed – Crimes Act 1958, ss.61, 398A.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Ms. M. Sexton
P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant
Mr. G.J. Traczyk
Jamieson & Co.
WINNEKE, P. ORMISTON, J.A.:
The applicant, Michael Charles Glennon, is now aged 56 years. He was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest for the Archdiocese of Melbourne in May 1971. In January 1974 he was appointed assistant priest at St. Monica’s Church in Moonee Ponds. He remained at that Church in that capacity until January 1977 when he was appointed assistant priest at St. Gabriel’s Church in Reservoir where he remained until 15 April 1978 when he was given leave from his appointment. Thereafter he ceased to be a practising Catholic priest but, pursuant to authority granted by the Archbishop, he continued to celebrate Mass privately, and to preside at weddings and other family celebrations. On 30 March 1984 the Archbishop accepted the applicant’s resignation from the priesthood and withdrew his authorization to exercise the priesthood in any manner. On 17 May 1999 the applicant was laicised.
During his tenure at St. Gabriel’s Church in Reservoir, the applicant was instrumental in setting up an organization known as “the Peaceful Hand Youth Foundation”, of which he became Governing Director. The Foundation had premises at Lancefield in the State of Victoria known as “Karaglen”. It encouraged the youth of Victoria, particularly those involved with the Church, to join in activities at “Karaglen” and at other places within the State. The applicant was particularly interested in training young children in the art of karate. He also had an interest in scouting activities, drama and sport.
In 1978, the applicant was convicted of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 16. He became notorious, at least in this State, in 1985 when he gave evidence against two young men (one of whom was his nephew), who were accused of assaulting him. In that case, the accused (who were convicted) alleged that the applicant had raped one of them. These allegations…
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 Glennon (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Glennon (No 2) [2001] VSCA 17
Case
[2001] VSCA 17
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Glennon (No 2), the appellant, Glennon, appealed against his conviction for sexual offences against children and his subsequent sentence. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which had to consider several legal issues arising from the trial. Among the issues were whether the trial should have been stayed due to adverse pre-trial publicity, whether the jury should have been discharged during the trial due to further adverse publicity, and whether certain evidence should have been excluded or required specific warnings. The court also examined whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision, the adequacy of the Longman warning, and whether the prosecution failed to call relevant witnesses.
The Court of Appeal found that while there had been adverse publicity, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant a stay of the trial. Regarding the discharge of the jury, the court held that the trial judge did not err in deciding that the jury should not be discharged. The court also reviewed the admission of propensity evidence and concluded that it was rightly admitted and appropriately directed to the jury. The Longman warning was found to be adequate in this context, and the absence of a proximate complaint did not necessitate a new trial. Finally, the court determined that there was no failure by the prosecution to call relevant witnesses and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court affirmed the sentence of eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on the first presentment, with a non-parole period of six-and-a-half years. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court also directed a retrial on the second presentment, considering it necessary due to the circumstances surrounding that count.