Skelton v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 495

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA663/2010
[2010] NZCA 495
BETWEENKAY HALTON SKELTON

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Counsel:B J Hart for Appellant

N P Chisnall for Respondent

Judgment:29 October 2010 at 9 am

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF HAMMOND J

The application for bail is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
[1]        On 21 July 2010 the appellant was convicted in the Hamilton District Court on one count of perjury, having entered a guilty plea to that charge. She was remanded on bail. She was subsequently sentenced on 1 October 2010 to two years and eight months imprisonment.[1] On that same day, she lodged an appeal to this Court against the sentence. On 6 October 2010 the appellant was denied bail pending her appeal by Judge Tompkins in the District Court at Hamilton.
[1]      R v Skelton DC Hamilton CRI-2008-019-7272, 1 October 2010.
[2]        The appellant has now applied to this Court for bail pending the determination of the appeal, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000. I personally have considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. The parties consented to my doing so, on the papers.
[3]        The test to be applied in relation to the application is that set out in s 14 of the Bail Act. Under s 14(1), bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so. Section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted.
[4]        Whilst not determinative, the considerations in s 14(3) are material and are a convenient framework for analysis. They are:
(a)          The apparent strength of the grounds of appeal.
(b)         The length of the sentence that has been imposed on the appellant.
(c)          The likely length of time that will pass before the appeal is heard.
(d)The personal circumstances of the appellant and the appellant’s immediate family.

(e) Any other consideration that the Court considers relevant.

Apparent strength of proposed grounds of appeal
[5] The offending in this case was very serious and deliberate, going to the administration of justice. This occurred in the context of a prolonged dispute over several years between Ms Skelton and the father of their young child relating to contact and subsequently custody and parenting rights.
[6] The history was conveniently summarised by Judge Tompkins in his sentencing notes of 1 October 2010.[2] The Judge adopted a description of Ms Skelton as having participated in “a continuation of years of lies and manipulation of the Family Court and judicial system ...”.[3] The charge of perjury was initially laid in September 2008. A not guilty plea was maintained through the committal procedure and then up to and past a scheduled but aborted trial on 30 June 2010. Ms Skelton only entered a guilty plea on the eve of what was to be a second trial following that earlier…

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 Skelton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Skelton v The Queen [2010] NZCA 495
Case: [2010] NZCA 495
Decision Date: 29 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Skelton v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by the appellant, Kay Halton Skelton, for bail pending the determination of her appeal against her sentence. Skelton had been convicted in the Hamilton District Court of perjury and was subsequently sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment. The appeal against her sentence argued that the starting point for the sentence was too high. The Court of Appeal considered the application under the Bail Act 2000 and Crimes Act 1961, with the primary consideration being whether granting bail would be in the interests of justice. The Court noted the serious nature of Skelton's offence and her history of frustrating court processes, but also considered her personal circumstances, including her advanced pregnancy and the well-being of her young child. The Court found that the existing system within the Department of Corrections was well established to accommodate pregnant prisoners and their children, and that Skelton had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the usual course. The Court ultimately dismissed the application for bail pending the appeal.

Orders