Regina v David Jack Glen [2005] NSWSC 1093

Regina v David Jack Glen [2005] NSWSC 1093

Although the murder was callous, brutal and very serious, it was not in the worst category requiring imprisonment for the rest of the applicant's life. The original sentencing remarks did not contain a non-release recommendation and held out hope that the applicant's personality, behaviour and acceptance of criminality might change. The evidence showed substantial progress towards acknowledgment of wrongdoing, willingness and capacity to undertake the CUBIT program, and a significantly reduced risk of reoffending that could continue to lessen. A determinate sentence and non-parole period would best serve the public interest by enabling steps toward rehabilitation and supervised parole...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under Schedule 1 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to Set a Specified Term and Non Parole Period for a Life Sentence / Sentence Redetermination
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'life Imprisonment' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Eligibility' 'sex Offender Rehabilitation' 'risk of Reoffending']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'life Imprisonment' 'non Parole Period' 'parole Eligibility' 'sex Offender Rehabilitation' 'risk of Reoffending']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under Schedule 1 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to Set a Specified Term and Non Parole Period for a Life Sentence / Sentence Redetermination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should set a specified term and non-parole period for the applicant's life sentence for murder." "Whether the offence fell into the worst category so as to require imprisonment for the rest of the applicant's life." "Whether the applicant's progress, acknowledgement of wrongdoing and prospects of rehabilitation justified granting the application."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the murder was callous, brutal and very serious, it was not in the worst category requiring imprisonment for the rest of the applicant's life. The original sentencing remarks did not contain a non-release recommendation and held out hope that the applicant's personality, behaviour and acceptance of criminality might change. The evidence showed substantial progress towards acknowledgment of wrongdoing, willingness and capacity to undertake the CUBIT program, and a significantly reduced risk of reoffending that could continue to lessen. A determinate sentence and non-parole period would best serve the public interest by enabling steps toward rehabilitation and supervised parole...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['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.']