Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Not a test case

From Granny.
A District Court judge and police say the prosecution of a man who insisted he had flicked his son's ear, only later to be convicted of punching the child in the face, was never a test case for child smacking laws.

The case was widely seen as a test of the anti-smacking laws because Mason publicly claimed that he had done no more than administer a flick on the ear.

But Christchurch District Court Judge Michael Crosbie said the matter would have been dealt with in exactly the same way before the introduction of the smacking legislation.

"It remains a case of an assault on a child, as it would have prior to the legislation being enacted," he told Mason at sentencing.

"You don't accept the facts but you do say that in hindsight you should have been able to manage the situation in a calmer manner and not reacted in the way you described."

Judge Crosbie said a discharge without conviction was not appropriate. "It is clear the jury found there was a punch and you admitted as much to the police."

A punch is a violent act and deserves a prosecution and a conviction. A smack for corrective purposes is not a violent act and should not result in a prosecution and a conviction.

The Judge knew the difference. Therefore this guy would have been convicted under the old section 59. If that is the case why was it changed again?

16 comments:

JC said...

"Therefore this guy would have been convicted under the old section 59. If that is the case why was it changed again?"

Because the old section 59 was only concerned with legal issues and did not send socially progressive messages.

John Key is quite right when he says the new section is working. All complaints are forwarded to the police and Social Welfare, and all such parents are threatened with jail and/or loss of their children.. that means that over 80% of families are now controlled by threat and fear over the upbringing of their children by the Mullahs.

JC

Anonymous said...

Oh Crap. This guy was disciplining his own kids in his own way. The state has absolutely no place in policing his actions

Or do you really want the cops, CYFS, and Anne Tolley looking into you bedroom or your kids bedroom or your lounge or when you're out on the street.

This just goes to show how much the nanny-state nambly-pambly-nimby attitute of Helen still persists, even after a decisive defeat when even Hellen realised the time was come for a bonfire of everything they achieved

JC is right. And Granny and Key and Bradford and all the lefties are terribly terribly wrong.

The only good news is that Boscowan or someone else from ACT is going to assist Mason with his appeal.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

"The only good news is that Boscowan or someone else from ACT is going to assist Mason with his appeal."

Anon, would the 'someone else from ACT' be the publicly pissed groper or the downwardly mobile pig farmer?

Gooner said...

Anon, the guy punched his child. That is unlawful and should always be. If ACT get involved with this they deserve all the opprobrium they get and I sincerely hope you're wrong.

Psycho Milt said...

If ACT get involved with this they deserve all the opprobrium they get...

You bet, and I can't imagine them getting involved. If a jury accepted that this guy punched his kid in the face, it's all over - S59 repeal or not. Sinner might believe children are a parent's personal property to be damaged or destroyed at the owner's discretion, but as with everything else he's part of a tiny, extremist minority.

dad4justice said...

Punch, my arse stupid judge. Any medical evidence produced by the bent crown? No because it didn't happen you corrupt pricks!

Gooner said...

Yeah, and I s'pose the admission/confession was obtained through waterboarding D4J.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Nah, more likely cattle prods up the rectal passage. They were in Canturbury were they not?

dad4justice said...

He did not punch the child. He said he didn't but that doesn't matter in a court of law where judges often influence the jury. Check out recent court of appeal activities if you don't believe me. Our justice system is rotten to the core. Fact !

dad4justice said...

"Mason's lawyer, Elizabeth Bulger, declined to comment on a possible appeal."

Elizabeth will not appeal because she is on the crown payroll.Fat useless pig of a woman. Jimmy was done over by the filth. JUSTICE is sick game.

Falafulu Fisi said...

Hearsay evidence/accusation weighs more than physical evidence? David Bain? The physical evidence was overwhelming against David and at the end he walked free. The father was accused solely on the words of an eyewitness from a passerby member of the public who reported the incident to the Police. What happened? Whoa, this guy was found guilty.

I agree with Gooner that if he assaulted his child then it would have been prosecuted under old S59. Why was it changed then?

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no evidence presented that the injury caused to the child was more than "transitory and trifling".

This discipline has currently landed a good, caring father with a criminal record. He could have gone to jail.

Furthermore, his parental correction would have been clearly legal under the Burrows/ Boscawen
amendment.

Can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

What a country, madness reigns supreme, people like Sue Bradford have far too much power and the
water govt backs them, bye bye JK, never again will you have our votes.

Gooner said...

For those of you here (notable Peter Burns) who seem unable to read I will again relay the Judges comments as repeated in Granny:

It is clear the jury found there was a punch and you admitted as much to the police."

Anonymous said...

What a country, madness reigns supreme, people like Sue Bradford have far too much power and the
water govt backs them, bye bye JK, never again will you have our votes.

WAKE UP said...

One day this country might wake up to the fact that it has long been the plaything of nutters.