R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Criminal FILE NUMBER(S) : L00009/93 HEARING DATE(S) : 1/10/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 October 1999

PARTIES : David Jack Glen JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJatCL

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Crown: R.D. Ellis Applicant: M. Ramage QC SOLICITORS : P.Thompson T.A. Murphy CATCHWORDS : DECISION : Appliction dismissed. I direct that the applicant may present a fresh application under s13A at a date not earlier than a date 18 months from today. To that extent th eperiod of two years otherwise applicable is reduced.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION BAILS/CRIMINAL

WOOD CJ AT CL

FRIDAY 1 OCTOBER 1999

L00009/93- DAVID JACK GLEN

JUDGMENT - On application for redetermination of Life Sentence 1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant seeks a redetermination of a life sentence imposed upon him by me on 22 December 1986 following his conviction for murder. He has now served 14 years of that sentence, calculated from the time of his arrest. The present application was filed on 12 October 1993, within days of the eighth anniversary of his arrest, from which time his custody began. 2 Although he is not to be criticised for seeking to exercise his legal rights, the filing of an application upon that date, in a case involving the hideous circumstances of the present offence, does provide some measure of his lack of insight and remorse at that time.

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT 3 The date of that application, however, has an additional relevance, since it is his primary application today that the proceedings be adjourned until about June 2000, in order to allow him to complete the full SORT (Sexual Offenders Redirectional Training) programme. 4 It is accepted by counsel for the applicant that the position still is in a state of fluidity, so far as his rehabilitation and responsiveness to the psychological counselling and sexual offender diversionary training is concerned, and will remain so until he completes the full SORT programme. 5 In the alternative to the proceedings being, and in the event of the application being dismissed, it is Mr Ramage's submission that the time for a further application be reduced to something less than the period of two years which would otherwise be applicable. 6 Having regard to the circumstances which will be outlined later in these reasons, I am of the view that it is inappropriate for the application to be further adjourned. It has now been with the Court for almost six years, during which period it was called over twice in 1988 and for a third occasion in May of this year. On those first two occasions, the matter was stood over upon the basis that the application was not ready to be listed. On the third occasion, a similar application was made, but refused by the List Judge. 7 It is the fact that as late as March of this year, the applicant was resisting the encouragement, which had been offered to him, to engage in psychological counselling and to participate in a sexual offenders diversionary programme. It was only after the last call over that it became apparent that his attitude was changing and that the possibility of his entry into the SORT programme was a reality. 8 I am of the view that it is utterly inappropriate for an application of this kind to remain in limbo for six years, and that the time has arisen for it to be determined today. Accordingly, I refuse the application for an adjournment.