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
Guideline Judgment considered - Not a case falling within the typical case under Crimes Act 1900 section 52A - Clash of competing sentencing principles
on parole)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 149Category: Sentence Parties: Regina
Daniel GloverRepresentation: Mr C Irani (Crown)
Mr B Vasic (Offender)
File Number(s): 2010/119208
Judgment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At about 10.25pm on…
Continue reading R v Glover
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Glover [2011] NSWDC 65
- Case
- [2011] NSWDC 65
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.