Clairvoyant killer John Glascott dumps barrister midway through murder appeal

A clairvoyant killer jailed for the 2006 murder of his divorce lawyer says his barrister is “one of the best” but has fired him midway through appeal.

Clairvoyant killer John Glascott has dumped his barrister midway through his murder appeal.

A clairvoyant killer jailed for the 2006 murder of his divorce lawyer has dumped his long-serving barrister midway through an appeal hearing a decade in the making.

John Glascott asked his experienced lawyer to stand down as he pleaded with the Court of Appeal on Thursday to grant him a retrial, claiming he was denied justice during his first trial over the execution of his solicitor David Robinson.

Glascott, a former train station assistant and clairvoyant was found guilty by a Supreme Court jury of shooting Mr Robinson dead in a laneway after falling out over a divorce settlement.

The then-44-year-old was sentenced to at least 24 years prison for the murder, which prosecutors say was sparked after Mr Robinson disturbed Glascott attempting to light a fire at his Fairfield law offices on July 10, 2006.

Glascott, who had sacked his barrister midway through the trial, went on to represent himself in a 2011 failed appeal in the Court of Appeal, citing his “incompetent lawyer”.

John Glascott asked his experienced lawyer to stand down as he pleaded with the Court of Appeal on Thursday to grant him a retrial.

Ten years on, he maintains his innocence and faced court for a second appeal based on what he claimed was “fresh and compelling evidence”.

Barrister Allan Hands, who had been engaged in Glascott’s case for the past decade and represented him at an unsuccessful High Court appeal in 2015, told the court his client held “lingering sense of disappointment about how the trial was run and has spent many years trying to gather evidence to prove his innocence”.

But soon after Mr Hands began to detail the basis of his latest bid for freedom, Glascott raised his hand from his cell at Hopkins Correctional facility.

“Your honours, my barrister doesn’t have all the facts,” he told the court.

“It is in my best interest to conduct the appeal myself … this is my life here, please,” Glascott told Justices David Beach and Cameron Macaulay.

Following a “robust discussion” between the pair in private, Mr Hands said Glascott had “lost confidence” in him.

Galscott was sentenced to at least 24 years prison for the murder of his divorce lawyer.

Glascott said Mr Hands was “a gun … one of the best barristers I’ve ever come across” who had done some “fantastic work” over the past ten years, but ultimately he needed to do what was “in my own best interests”.

Glascott, who has an acquired brain injury, became emotional as he told the court: “My voice was stolen from me and I’m not going to have my voice stolen from me again”.

He claims the “fresh evidence”, needed to satisfy the requirements of a second appeal, was that several witnesses in the first trial had perjured themselves.

Written submissions to the court also highlight new witnesses who had come forward to present exculpatory evidence on behalf of Glascott, including that there was no animosity between the accused and Mr Robinson.

Elizabeth Ruddle QC, for the Crown, said the evidence presented was “neither fresh nor compelling” and the appeal should be dismissed.

Justices Beach and Macaulay reserved their judgment.