SKIPWORTH v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 37

SKIPWORTH v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 37

The Court held that the complaint evidence and related directions disclosed no error or miscarriage and, in any event, the absence of objections at trial justified refusal of leave under rule 4. The jury's guilty verdicts on counts 5, 6 and 7 were reasonably open and not inconsistent with the acquittals because the evidence distinguished later conduct, after the complainant had protested and attempted to stop the appellant, from earlier or different alleged acts. The introductory remarks about the respective roles of the Crown, defence counsel and jury were accurate, contextual and not unfairly prejudicial. On sentence, the judge gave weight to the appellant's favourable subjective...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal as to sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Assault' 'complaint Evidence' 'fresh in the Memory' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable or Inconsistent Verdicts' 'role of Prosecutor, Defence Counsel and Jury' 'cumulative Sentences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Assault' 'complaint Evidence' 'fresh in the Memory' 'jury Directions' 'unreasonable or Inconsistent Verdicts' 'role of Prosecutor, Defence Counsel and Jury' 'cumulative Sentences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of complaints said to have been made to the complainant's mother and to Mr de Rouw should have been admitted." 'Whether the directions given to the jury on the manner in which they could use the complaint evidence were inadequate.' 'Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 5, 6 and 7 were unreasonable or inconsistent having regard to the acquittals on the other counts.' 'Whether introductory remarks to the jury unfairly prejudiced the appellant by the way they described the respective roles of the Crown Prosecutor, defence counsel and the jury.' 'Whether the sentences on counts 5 and 7 should have been ordered to be served cumulatively.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the complaint evidence and related directions disclosed no error or miscarriage and, in any event, the absence of objections at trial justified refusal of leave under rule 4. The jury's guilty verdicts on counts 5, 6 and 7 were reasonably open and not inconsistent with the acquittals because the evidence distinguished later conduct, after the complainant had protested and attempted to stop the appellant, from earlier or different alleged acts. The introductory remarks about the respective roles of the Crown, defence counsel and jury were accurate, contextual and not unfairly prejudicial. On sentence, the judge gave weight to the appellant's favourable subjective...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal as to sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal as to sentence dismissed.']