Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 29/2011
[2011] NZSC 70

KAY HALTON SKELTON

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and William Young JJ

Counsel: B J Hart for Applicant
M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment: 27 June 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for two years eight months for perjury.[1] She was involved in a custody battle with her former partner concerning their six-year-old son. She falsely labelled buccal swabs and sent them to a laboratory seeking paternity analysis. Having obtained a test result she gave evidence in the paternity proceeding under oath concerning the swabs and the analysis when she obviously knew that evidence was false. She faced an overwhelming Crown case when charged with perjury but did not plead guilty until the day before trial, nearly two years after being charged.
[1]R v Skelton DC Hamilton CIR-2008-019-7272, 1 October 2010. Her appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Skelton v R [2011] NZCA 35.
The perjury was very serious and if not detected could have had consequences for both the real father and the child. Ironically she has sought a lesser sentence on the basis of the rights of her children. She was fortunate to get any discount for her guilty plea (a four-month reduction was given) in the circumstances in which it was made. No miscarriage of justice is apparent.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen involved the applicant, Kay Halton Skelton, who sought leave to appeal against her sentence for perjury. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed her appeal against the sentence, which was two years and eight months of imprisonment. Skelton was embroiled in a custody battle with her former partner concerning their six-year-old son. During the proceedings, Skelton submitted false buccal swabs to a laboratory seeking paternity analysis and then testified under oath concerning the test results, despite knowing they were false. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding whether Skelton's application for leave to appeal should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Skelton's application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The court considered the seriousness of the perjury, the consequences of Skelton's actions, and the timing of her guilty plea. The court also weighed the impact of Skelton's actions on her children and the potential for a miscarriage of justice. The court found that Skelton's perjury was very serious and that it could have had significant consequences for both the real father and the child. The court also noted that Skelton had delayed in pleading guilty, only doing so on the day before trial, nearly two years after being charged.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Skelton's application for leave to appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The court noted that Skelton had been fortunate to receive any discount for her guilty plea, given the circumstances in which it was made. The court also found that Skelton's appeal against sentence had been properly dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court did not find any error in the Court of Appeal's reasoning or conclusion.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Kay Halton Skelton's application for leave to appeal against her sentence for perjury. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The court did not find any miscarriage of justice and found no error in the Court of Appeal's reasoning or conclusion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established