R v Glumac - [2024] NSWDC 454

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Glumac [2024] NSWDC 454
Hearing dates: 5 and 6 August 2024
Date of orders: 29 August 2024
Decision date: 29 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 132(4) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the trial of Anthony Stevo Glumac be heard before a judge sitting alone.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Whether in interests of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Brown v DPP (NSW) [2018] NSWCCA 94
DPP (NSW) v Farrugia [2017] NSWCCA 197
Landsman v R [2014] NSWCCA 328
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; (2012) 217 A Crim R 1
R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 552
R v McNeil [2015] NSWSC 357
R v Obeid [2015] NSWSC 897
R v Qaumi (No 14) (Judge Alone Application) [2016] NSWSC 274
R v Simmons (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259
R v Villalon [2013] NSWSC 1516
Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110
Stenner-Wall v R [2023] NSWCCA 163

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Anthony Glumac (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hay (Crown)
S Climo with C Brain (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/349176
Publication restriction: Complainants’ names anonymised

Judgment

Introduction

Anthony Stevo Glumac (the accused) seeks an order that his trial be heard before a Judge sitting alone (trial by judge order), pursuant to s 132(4) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (the Act).
The accused has been arraigned and pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing 47 counts alleging a variety of sexual offences committed by him against 18 separate complainants in the period of 2013 to 2020. Seven of the 47 counts are alternative counts. The accused’s trial is listed to commence in February 2025 with an estimate of six months on the basis that it will be heard by a jury.
The Crown opposes the trial by judge order.
Section 132(4) of the Act provides that the trial by judge order may be made if the Court considers it in the interests of justice to do so.
In the event that his application for a trial by judge order is unsuccessful, the accused seeks orders for separate trials of various counts. I have assumed when dealing with the application for the trial by judge order, that it relates to a single trial involving all complainants, however the applications do overlap and I have had regard to the arguments in each in coming to my ultimate conclusion.
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the trial by judge order should be made and accordingly it is unnecessary to deal with the application for separate trials.

Evidence

The accused read an affidavit of Joanne Harris, solicitor, sworn on 28 June 2024 annexing a large number of media articles published online and in print relating to the charges laid against the accused. Ms Harris was not required for cross-examination.
The Crown…

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 Glumac

Details

AGLC: R v Glumac [2024] NSWDC 454
Case: [2024] NSWDC 454
Decision Date: 29 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was called upon to decide whether a trial by judge alone was appropriate in the case of Anthony Stevo Glumac. The applicant was charged with various serious offences, including murder and drug-related charges. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed before a judge sitting alone, rather than a judge and jury. This question arose under section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which allows for a trial by judge alone if the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The court considered a range of factors in making its decision, including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the evidence that might be presented, and the potential impact on the applicant's right to a fair trial. The court noted that the applicant faced multiple serious charges, and the evidence was likely to be complex and extensive. The court also considered the potential for prejudice or bias in a jury trial, given the high-profile nature of the case. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that a trial by judge alone was in the interests of justice, given the complexity of the case and the potential for prejudice in a jury trial.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of justice. The court found that the seriousness of the charges and the potential for prejudice in a jury trial outweighed any other considerations. The court's decision was also influenced by the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted of serious offences and had served a lengthy prison sentence. The court concluded that a trial by judge alone was the most appropriate way to ensure that the applicant received a fair trial and that justice was properly served.

The court ordered that the trial of Anthony Stevo Glumac be heard before a judge sitting alone, in accordance with section 132(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. This decision ensures that the applicant will receive a fair trial, while also taking into account the interests of justice and the potential for prejudice in a jury trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 132(4) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the trial of Anthony Stevo Glumac be heard before a judge sitting alone.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Glumac [2024] NSWDC 454
Hearing dates:	5 and 6 August 2024
Date of orders:	29 August 2024
Decision date:	29 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 132(4) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the trial of Anthony Stevo Glumac be heard before a judge sitting alone.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Whether in interests of justice
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Brown v DPP (NSW) [2018] NSWCCA 94 DPP (NSW) v Farrugia [2017] NSWCCA 197 Landsman v R [2014] NSWCCA 328 R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; (2012) 217 A Crim R 1 R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 552 R v McNeil [2015] NSWSC 357 R v Obeid [2015] NSWSC 897 R v Qaumi (No 14) (Judge Alone Application) [2016] NSWSC 274 R v Simmons (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259 R v Villalon [2013] NSWSC 1516 Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110 Stenner-Wall v R [2023] NSWCCA 163
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Anthony Glumac (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: M Hay (Crown) S Climo with C Brain (Offender) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/349176
Publication restriction:	Complainants’ names anonymised