R v Skinner - [2000] NSWSC 303

CITATION: REGINA v. SKINNER [2000] NSWSC 303

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70204 of 1997

HEARING DATE(S): 27 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 27 March 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
SKINNER, Karen Denise

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: G. Smith
Prisoner: B. Stratton, QC.

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Prisoner: Mark Rumore

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - hinder police investigation - serious offence - stale crime - resident of Queensland - nil further offences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

DECISION: Recognizance to be of good behaviour for three years

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70204 of 1997

GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 27 MARCH 2000

REGINA v. KAREN DENISE SKINNER
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Karen Denise Skinner, who was previously indicted before me on an indictment jointly with Fabrizio Calderoni, has pleaded guilty to one count that she did, between 1 February 1996 and 30 April 1996 with intent to hinder the investigation of a serious offence, namely the murder of Peter Marneros by Graeme Anderson Brown and Fabrizio Calderoni, give false information to the police and did encourage Fabrizio Calderoni to give false information to the police. She is convicted on that plea. 2 That plea has been accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment now presented against her and in respect of the previous indictment which included one count of accessory after the fact to the murder of Peter Marneros by Fabrizio Calderoni on 11 June 1991. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not proceed any further on that former indictment. 3 Fabrizio Calderoni was tried before me and a jury for that murder, and was acquitted by the verdict of the jury last Friday. The basis upon which the Crown put its case in that trial was that Graeme Anderson Brown was a principal in the first degree in the murder and that Fabrizio Calderoni was either an accessory before the fact, or alternatively was an aider and abettor or principal in the second degree, present and assisting in the murder. One Brett Skinner, it had been alleged, was also a party to the killing, although the Crown has not proceeded against him. 4 In short compass, it was alleged by the Crown that Brown was seeking to recover monies from either Peter Marneros or a person George Karipis, also known as George Page, and for that purpose was utilising the assistance of Calderoni and Brett Skinner to rob Marneros. 5 There was evidence that Brown's lover, one Patricia Adams (a protected witness giving evidence under a pseudonym) had knowledge of Brown's intentions and gave evidence in the trial that Calderoni had said prior to the robbery "Graeme will kill him". The acceptance by the jury of that latter fact was crucial to a finding that Calderoni was an accessory before the fact. 6 I cannot be satisfied of that fact in the light of the verdict of the jury. Even though these are…

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 R v Skinner

Details

AGLC: R v Skinner [2000] NSWSC 303
Case: [2000] NSWSC 303
Decision Date: 27 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Skinner, who had been convicted of several serious criminal offences. Skinner, a resident of Queensland, had been found guilty of charges including hindering police investigation and engaging in serious criminal conduct. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed for these offences. Skinner had no prior criminal record, and the crimes were considered particularly egregious due to the nature of the offences and their impact on the community. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, particularly given the serious nature of the offences and Skinner's lack of a prior criminal record. The court had to balance the need to deter such conduct against the possibility of rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court considered whether the length of time since the commission of the crimes, referred to as the'stale crime' factor, should mitigate the sentence. The court also had to weigh the impact of Skinner's clean record and the potential for rehabilitation against the gravity of the crimes committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court noted that while Skinner had no prior criminal history, which could have been a mitigating factor, the gravity of the crimes warranted a significant sentence. The court held that the 'stale crime' factor did not warrant substantial mitigation, as the nature of the offences and their impact on the community remained significant. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and to serve as a deterrent to others who might consider similar conduct. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders