R v Glover

Case [2011] NSWDC 65


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Glover [2011] NSWDC 65
Hearing dates:1 April 2011
Decision date: 12 April 2011
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Total sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 11 months and the balance of the sentence

Disqualified from driving for 2 years

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Aggravated Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm - PCA significantly above threshold - Poor driving record - Life threatening serious injury to child aged 2 years and 6 months

Victim was offender's son - Extra Curial Punishment of offender (severe injuries) - Extra Curial Suffering of offender (anguish and remorse for damage done to own child) - Hardship to primary and secondary victims of the crime (son and mother caused by effect of offender's incarceration) - Prosects of rehabilitation (enhanced by lengthy period
on parole)

Guideline Judgment considered - Not a case falling within the typical case under Crimes Act 1900 section 52A - Clash of competing sentencing principles
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(4)
Cases Cited: Hughes v R [2008] NSWCCA 48
R v Dhanhoa [2000] NSWCCA 257
R v Dutton [2005] NSWCCA 248
R v Howcher [2004] NSWCCA 179
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Koosmen [2004] NSWCCA 359
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343, 55 NSWLR 252
Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Daniel Glover
Representation: Mr C Irani (Crown)
Mr B Vasic (Offender)
File Number(s):2010/119208

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Daniel Glover stands for sentence as a consequence of adhering to a plea of guilty entered to a charge in the Local Court at the earliest available opportunity. That the plea was entered at the earliest available opportunity is accepted by the Crown. The charge to which the offender pleaded guilty is a very serious charge.

  1. The charge was that on 6 March 2010 at Appin he did drive a vehicle, namely a white Mitsubishi Magna sedan registered number VMV 775, when it was involved in an impact occasioning grievous bodily harm to Ryder Glover and the time of the impact he was driving a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that he had in his blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol, a reading of 0.212.

  1. That is an offence contrary to s 52A(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 and Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of eleven years imprisonment. The offence can be shortly described as aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

  1. At the time of the offence Ryder Nathaniel Glover was two years and six months old. Ryder is the offender's elder child and his only son. Ryder was severely injured.

  1. I must state at the outset that the present sentencing exercise I have found to be a very difficult one, perhaps the most difficult I have been called upon to carry out in the last five years.

  1. At about 10.25pm on…

Continue reading R v Glover

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Glover [2011] NSWDC 65
Case
[2011] NSWDC 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Glover involved an appeal by the offender against his sentence for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The offender's son, aged two years and six months, was seriously injured in the incident. The offender had a history of poor driving, which significantly aggravated the offence. The court had to balance various sentencing principles, including the severity of the offence, the offender's driving record, and the impact of his incarceration on his family.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering the aggravating factors and the competing sentencing principles. The court had to weigh the severity of the offender's actions, which resulted in life-threatening injuries to his own child, against the potential for rehabilitation and the extra-curial punishment and suffering experienced by the offender and his family due to his incarceration. The court also had to consider the prospects of rehabilitation and the impact on the primary and secondary victims.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the guideline judgment and determined that this case did not fall within the typical case under section 52A of the Crimes Act 1900. The court acknowledged the clash between the competing sentencing principles but ultimately found that the offender's actions warranted a significant sentence. The court imposed a total sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 months, and disqualified the offender from driving for 2 years. The court took into account the extra-curial punishment and suffering experienced by the offender, as well as the hardship to the primary and secondary victims of the crime. The court also considered the prospects of rehabilitation, enhanced by a lengthy period on parole.

The final orders of the court were that the offender was to serve a total sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 11 months and the balance of the sentence. Additionally, the offender was disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 1 year and 10 months imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 11 months and the balance of the sentence

Disqualified from driving for 2 years

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.