Indecent assault acquittal

Press, 4 April 1989, Page 23

Indecent assault acquittal

After a retirement of 36 minutes, a jury in the District Court yesterday found a man not guilty of indecently assaulting a middle-aged woman in the office where she worked. Judge Fraser discharged the defendant, George Francis Skupski, aged 56, an Accident Compensation Commission beneficiary. Skupski, who denied the charge, was represented by Mr Brooke Gibson, of Wellington. Mr Raoul Neave appeared for the Crown. Prosecution evidence was that the complainant knew of Skupski through her employment. On the morning of September 7 last year he had visited her office in Greymouth, and had kissed her as he reached her desk. She said she turned her head as he did so, as she was not well enough acquainted with him. They then talked about “things in general” but she was embarrassed by his saying she was a goodlooking woman. The complainant said Skupski’ leaned over her and pinned her to her desk, with his arm round her shoulders. He went to kiss her but she struggled and moved her shoulders. She said he then started to get more “intensive” with his

hands. She described indecencies which she alleged took place.

After the incident he left the office.

The complainant said she went to telephone her husband but realised he was working out of town that day. Her daughter’s telephone was engaged and so she telephoned a man she knew and asked him to talk to her. He asked her what was wrong and she told him.

She went home from work early. After her husband arrived home and she told him what had occurred, he telephoned the police. Cross-examined, the complainant said she did not telephone the police immediately, because clients had arrived. She had sent a facsimile message after they left. She did not go to the police station after that, because she had no desire to speak to others. She only wanted to speak to somebody close to her. Asked why she had telephoned a man, she said she had tried to speak to somebody else but could not get through. Mr Gibson asked why she had not called the police. She said there was no way she could tell the police what happened and she did not tell the man she telephoned the details. “I could not have.”

When questioned by the police and in evidence yesterday, Skupski denied committing any indecency and said nothing untoward had occurred in the office. He said they had known each other since he came to the West Coast in 1986. They both hugged and kissed each other when he called into her office as they had not seen each other for so long.

Mr Gibson, in his final address to the jurors, submitted there was a very real doubt that any indecent assault occurred in the way the woman alleged.

No medical evidence had been given to substantiate an assault and there were no other witnesses.

The complainant had over-acted when giving her evidence. She had burst into tears in the witness box about things she alleged happened last September, yet immediately after they occurred she had conducted a normal interview with other clients in her office and had sent a facsimile message to Wellington. She had carried on her normal business. (Before Judge Hobbs) PAUA CHARGES Two men who caught over-limit bags of paua at Amberley Beach last Sep-

tember were fined a total of $B4O yesterday by Judge Hobbs.

Paul Desmond Atkinson, a freezing worker, and David Charles Laird, unemployed, each pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing more than 20 paua on any day and possessing undersize paua.

A fine of $l5O on each charge was imposed on Laird and $2OO on each charge on Atkinson. Both were also charged $75 each solicitors’ fees.

The Court was told that on September 23, 1988, two Ministry of Fisheries officers went to Amberley Beach, where they saw scuba gear in the defendants’ boat.

No shellfish were found on board but a blue plastic fish box was discovered, partly concealed under a nearby lupin bush with 238 paua weighing 41kg and a retail value of about $lOOO. The defendants initially denied any knowledge of the paua but later admitted the paua had been taken on the spur of the moment and were to be given to friends “in return for past favours.” Counsel, Mr Gerald Lascelles, said there was nothing sinister about the scuba gear and it had not been used to dive for paua. The paua had not been for sale.