Legal Research
Cases
Skipworth v R

Skipworth v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 37 1 March 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: SKIPWORTH v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 37
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Barr J at 60; Hall J at 61

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal as to sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE – sexual assault – complaint evidence – delay in making – justifiability of – where complainant’s mother and offender in business relationship – where complainant and mother boarding in offender’s home - EVIDENCE – sexual assault – complaint evidence – delay in making – complainant told mother 66 days after event – whether “fresh in the memory” under s 66 Evidence Act 1995 - EVIDENCE – sexual assault – complaint evidence – where “vague” or lacking clear element of complaint – probative value not outweighed by prejudice where evidence has corroborative value - DIRECTIONS TO JURY – introductory directions as to respective roles of the Crown, defence and jury – whether stressed too significant an association between the Crown and the community – whether stressed too significant an association between jury and the community – whether amounted to saying that the Crown and jury “on the same side” – whether distinguished the Crown’s approach to the evidence as scrupulously fair as against the defence (D)

PARTIES: Bruce Robert SKIPWORTH v REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/1505

COUNSEL: Appellant: P Byrne SC/ G Bashir
Crown: G Rowling

SOLICITORS: Appellant: C Bilinsky, Horowitz & Billinsky
Crown: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/41/129

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16/12/2005

CCA 2005/1505 CCAP

MASON P
BARR J
HALL J
Wednesday 1 March 2006

Bruce Robert SKIPWORTH v REGINA

Judgment

1 MASON P: The appellant stood trial in the District Court on an indictment containing 10 counts, namely:

Bruce Robert SKIPWORTH

1. On or about the 13th day of December 2002, at Colo Vale, in the State of New South Wales, did assault

and that he Bruce Robert SKIPWORTH at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on

2. On or about the 13th day of December 2002, at Colo Vale, in the State of New South Wales, did assault

and that he Bruce Robert SKIPWORTH at the time of such assault did commit an act of indecency on

3. On or about the 13th day of December 2002, at Colo Vale, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with

without the consent of

knowing she was not consenting.

4. On or about the 13th day of December 2002, at Colo Vale, in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with

without the consent of

knowing she was not consenting.

5. On or about the 13th day of December 2002,…

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 Skipworth v R

Details

AGLC: Skipworth v R [2006] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 1 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Skipworth v The Queen, the High Court of Australia addressed the admissibility of evidence regarding a sexual assault allegation, the justifiability of the delay in making the complaint, and the appropriateness of certain jury directions given by the trial judge. The respondent, Skipworth, was charged with sexually assaulting the appellant during a period when they were both living in the respondent's home. The appellant did not report the incident to authorities for 66 days, instead confiding in her mother, who was in a business relationship with the respondent.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault was justifiable and whether the evidence of the complaint was admissible under section 66 of the Evidence Act 1995. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's jury directions were appropriate, particularly whether they improperly aligned the jury with the Crown or the defence.

The court found that the delay in reporting the sexual assault was justifiable, given the appellant's close relationship with her mother and the business relationship between the mother and the respondent. The court held that the evidence was "fresh in the memory" as it was provided to the mother shortly after the incident. Furthermore, the court held that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect, particularly because it had corroborative value. Regarding the jury directions, the court concluded that the directions were proper and did not improperly associate the jury with the Crown or undermine the defence's approach to the evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the context of the relationship between the complainant and the alleged offender when assessing the justifiability of delays in reporting sexual assault, as well as the significance of corroborative evidence in determining admissibility.

Orders