R v Schippani

In the case of R v Schippani, the respondent, Schippani, was charged with a single count of indecent act without consent contrary to section 67(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The incident in question involved Schippani performing a Brazilian wax on the complainant, and the crux of the dispute was whether the act constituted an indecent act without consent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the act of providing a Brazilian wax constituted an indecent act, and if so, whether the complainant had given consent to this act. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the statutory requirement of lack of consent under section 67(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) was limited to cases of knowledge of the lack of consent, as per section 67(3), or if recklessness regarding the lack of consent was also sufficient.

The court found that the act of providing a Brazilian wax did not necessarily equate to an indecent act if the physical contact was acceptable in the circumstances. The court concluded that the act “objectively does not unequivocally offer a sexual connotation,” and therefore, to establish an indecent act, there must be evidence of the accused's intention to obtain sexual gratification. The court also considered the credibility of the complainant's evidence and found that minor discrepancies or inaccuracies in the timing of events did not necessarily undermine her credibility. However, later additions to her complaint, made possibly with knowledge that the police were initially unconvinced by her account, did affect her credibility. Regarding the statutory interpretation, the court determined that section 67(3) did not limit section 67(1) to cases of knowledge of lack of consent, and recklessness was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of lack of consent.

The court acquitted Schippani on the charge, finding that the prosecution had not proven the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court also ordered that Appendix B of these reasons, which contains sensitive information about the complainant, is not to be published except to the prosecution and the accused.