Regina v David Jack Glen - [2005] NSWSC 1093

CITATION:
Regina v David Jack Glen [2005] NSWSC 1093

HEARING DATE(S): 16 September 2005, 14 October 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

28 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Barr J at 1

DECISION:
Application granted. Set a term of the sentence of thirty-six years, commencing on 10 October 1985 and expiring on 9 October 2021. Set a non-parole period of twenty-four years. The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole will be 9 October 2009.

PARTIES:
Regina , David Jack Glen

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC L00001/01

COUNSEL:
Crown: G Smith SC
Applicant: A Haesler SC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh
Applicant: Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

28 OCTOBER 2005

L00001/01 DAVID JACK GLEN
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by David Jack Glen for an order under Schedule 1 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 setting a specified term for a sentence together with a non-parole period. On 22 December 1986 Wood J sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for life following his trial and conviction for murder. His sentence began on the day of his arrest, 10 October 1985. Consequently, the applicant has now been in custody for twenty years. This is how his Honour described the case -

“The prisoner was, on 18 December 1986, convicted of the murder of Kylie Jane Corbett, his ten year old cousin. The offence, which occurred on 10 October 1985, was both vicious and sadistic, even on the account most favourable to the prisoner, taken from his statement and record of interview.

Regrettably, it is essential as a part of the permanent record for the prisoner’s file to set out in a little detail the facts and aggravating circumstances which bring the prisoner before the court for sentence.

He met Kylie and her younger sister shortly after 8am on 10 October as they were on their way to school. He observed that Kylie had a bag of clothes for a school charity and he invited her to call at his unit to collect some further materials. This she agreed to do.

Once there, he seized her around the neck and pushed her onto a bed. He pulled out a knife and threatened to kill her if she screamed or cried out. She was made to undress and he said he inserted his finger into her vagina “as far as I could”.

He acknowledged that she began to bleed. She was tied up by the wrists and legs to the bed and left there by the prisoner while he callously went to a nearby shopping centre to play the pinball machines and to buy some food for himself.

On his return to the unit he said he repeated the act of sexual interference previously mentioned, while she was tied to the bed. Kylie pleaded to be released and to be allowed to dress. The prisoner relented to the extent of cutting the bonds…

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 Regina v David Jack Glen

Details

AGLC: Regina v David Jack Glen [2005] NSWSC 1093
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1093
Decision Date: 28 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Jack Glen was convicted of the brutal murder of his ten-year-old cousin, Kylie Corbett, and sentenced to life in prison. He applied for a specified term and non-parole period under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The legal issue was whether the applicant’s rehabilitation prospects warranted setting a specified term for his sentence and a non-parole period. The court considered evidence of the applicant's progress in prison, his participation in rehabilitation programs, and expert opinions on his risk of reoffending. The applicant had shown signs of remorse and insight into his criminality and had recently participated in a pre-SORT program. Experts agreed that his risk of reoffending had decreased significantly and that further rehabilitation would be promoted by his participation in the CUBIT program. The court concluded that the applicant's progress warranted granting the application, setting a term of thirty-six years with a non-parole period of twenty-four years. The earliest date for parole eligibility was set for 9 October 2009.

Orders