Assault with a pillow
Stuff reports on a strange case:
A Wellington man who hit his nephew on the head with a sofa cushion has been committed for jury trial, charged with assault on a child. …
Though no injury was found on the boy from the alleged assault with the small decorative cushion and she said did not see the actual attack happen, it was “definitely not” just a pillowfight, she said.
The boy’s mother admitted she had used physical violence to discipline her son in the past. …
Speaking from behind a protective screen shielding him from the accused, the boy told the court the pillow-hit had not really hurt and he felt no ill-will toward his uncle.
The boy said he had been hit on the top of the head and was not sore afterward.
During his appeal to the presiding Justices of the Peace to have the case dismissed, Mr Knowsley repeatedly asked whether he was dreaming.
“It is almost bizarre you can hear repeated admissions that the child has been repeatedly hit by his own parents but that this is going to a full jury case. Frankly, it’s preposterous,” he said.
It seems strange this is going to court when the boy has said the cushion didn’t really hurt, caused no damage, and he has no ill-will.
After re-confirming his not guilty plea, the alleged attacker was remanded on bail to an address in Wanganui, though his bail conditions stated he was not allowed to drink at all or have any contact with his sister’s family.
There is obviously bad blood between the brother and sister. But I would have thought you would just tell the uncle not to visit anymore and/or get a trespass order, rather than prosecute your brother for throwing a cushion at your kid.
The bail condition of not drinking suggests there may be more to this than meets the eye. It will be an interesting case when it does go to court.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:59 am
“Strange case” – translation: dog whistle for the child-beaters.
[DPF: And again you reveal more about yourself than anyone else by use of that term to smear people who disagree with you.]
July 21st, 2009 at 10:03 am
Very strange. The alcohol speech could well also be a red herring?
The Uncle is best to stay away, and for some time.
I would like to see the Parents tried for the crimes of assault against their Child. They have even admitted it!
July 21st, 2009 at 10:08 am
The weapon is immaterial. An assault has been committed.
Besides, a cushion is not a pillow, they are generally smaller and quite harder. The often also contain buttons and or zips, along with hard corners.
It is very simple – don’t want to be prosecuted? Don’t break the law, something you lot rabbit on about all the time. Until its one of your own; a drunken, violent thug.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
How the bloody hell does such a case get this far? If there is bad blood in the family, why is the full weight of the public judicial system being brought to bear on this man?
A jury trial? for being hit with a pillow?
Imagine if he goes to jail.
“whadaya in for?……..”
“pillow fight……”
This prosecution is brought to you by the same cops who are expected to sue judgement in prosecuting cases where the damage is trivial or inconsequential.
Yeah right……..
July 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Of course it’s a strange case. It’s a pillow case.
I’m hard pressed to believe the police think they can get a conviction on the evidence of a six year old child and a complaint from a mother who’ did not see the attack.’
July 21st, 2009 at 10:28 am
what a fucken joke this country is
July 21st, 2009 at 10:39 am
I’m glad we have a law against this sort of thing so it can’t happen any more.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Reminds me of the outcry over the Christchurch man being prosecuted for ear-flicking his son. In that case it turned out to have been a punch in the face.
I don’t know the facts of the case, but people should wait to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Some of us could see this coming. Zealous Police looking for an excuse to go find and track down the really bad crooks instead looking for nice easy cases where they can satisfy their political masters to show that the new law is working.
And pray tell has their been a significant decline in the murder and severe beatings of babies and small children since the new law was enacted???
Well waiting of your answer
Thought not
July 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
gd- if you explain to me by explaining why the section 59 defence would have made a difference in this case then I will listen to what you have to say? Failing to see the link myself.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:56 am
“I don’t know the facts of the case, but people should wait to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions.”
Since when has a lack of facts stopped anyone jumping on their bandwagon?
gd, no one claimed any quick fixes for what is often a generational problem. It will be a long time at best, and more likely impossible to prove the effect of the law change.
A minor tweak to law, a major tweak to some people’s perceptions.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
“There is obviously bad blood between the brother and sister.”
A couple of things in the report make my wonder if there is also bad blood between the JP’s and the defence council.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:15 am
When we start having jury trials about pillow fights you know our justice system and morals have gone stark raving bonkers.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am
Just amazed that the Police can run with this, and yet did nothing when the Perps were members of the Labour Party.
Something smells very bad to me.
Just wondering why the Winston Frauds haven’t been re-visited.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
“When we start having jury trials about pillow fights you know our justice system and morals have gone stark raving bonkers.”
Ha. Lets be honest this case would be just as weird if the same happened to an adult. Its just odd and again this isnt a case over the repeal of s59 as it would not of been relevant to the case at hand. Bloody bizzare.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“A couple of things in the report make my wonder if there is also bad blood between the JP’s and the defence council.”
Not really. The question for the JPs at depositions is creditability, not credibility. In other words, if we take the evidence on its face, and without questioning its truthfulness, has a crime been shown to have been committed. It doesn’t matter what the JPs think of the complainant, from the report it seems pretty clear that a crime was committed.
What everybody here is referring to is the rarely used argument of de minimus, which means basically that this is so trivial that the Court’s time should not be wasted with it.
If Simon Power wants to reduce court delays, one of the things he could look at is the number of these type of minor charges that the Police lay, and then often withdraw during the process. Of course, the Crown could choose not to indict the man.
Might I point out, however, that notwithstanding the general view as shown in the comments above, I would expect the Crown Solicitor to indict this man and take him to trial because, to use Simon Power’s words, they are incentivised to take as many cases to trial as possible as the Crown Solicitor’s firm makes more money and greater profits the more trials the Crown does.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
slightlyrighty 10:16 am,
“This prosecution is brought to you by the same cops who are expected to sue judgement in prosecuting cases where the damage is trivial or inconsequential.”
Absolutely agree with your sentiment.
By the way was that a freudian slip when you said “sue judgement”, I know you meant “use”, but this certainly has a Sue Bradford stench about it.
When I was a child society viewed uncles and aunties in much the same way as parents regarding ‘parental rights’. That being, if a child misbehaved in front of an auntie/uncle, especially in the absence of parents, then they were also likely to get a smack if required.
I understand this is not likely to be a discipline issue, but rather a ‘playfight’, nonetheless this in the past would never have been regarded as ‘assault’. How ridiculous!
Perhaps this highlights the reality that the police are even more confused now under the ‘Bradford regime’. Rather than using any objective judgement they may have been able to under the clarity of the old law, they now feel that perhaps their only option is to hand it over to the courts and let them decide.
All the more reason we should throw out this ‘Bradford abomination’.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
This would appear to be a fine example of why we need to review the system regarding prosecutions.
In the meantime, I am wondering if the police are still looking for those responsible for the murder of the Kahui twins.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
DON’T blame the Police except maybe their heirarchy. They have strict instructions that they are to report this kind of nonsense. It then goes through Youth Aid conferences and CYPS and Crown Law. Whether this poor guy is convicted or not he will probably be impoverished. He has probably been kept waiting for months before a decision was made to prosecute and months more before the case is resolved. He wasn’t just dreaming he was having a nightmare.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
backster: “Whether this poor guy is convicted or not he will probably be impoverished.”
He will certainly be thirsty. I’d have been inclined to tell the JP’s where to put their bail conditions and dare them to face the publicity of jailing me.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If Howie Broad had any balls he would stand up and say we arent going to waste the taxpayers money bringing prosecutions for minor non injury cases especially where there is evidence of personal agendas.
Instead we are going to use the scarce resources we have fighting real crime and real criminals starting with the members of the Labour Party and NZ First who broke the law and stole the taxpayers money
July 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
gd – what if you’re punched in the face mate? No ‘injury’ – only a bruise. There’d be screams to lock someone up for years…
July 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
N1tco, what if you made a relevant comment?
“… the boy told the court the pillow-hit had not really hurt and he felt no ill-will toward his uncle.
The boy said he had been hit on the top of the head and was not sore afterward.”
July 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Backster, you know very well that is rubbish. The police have a discretion on whether to prosecute or not and do not have lay charges if they do not choose to. However, the do have a policy that says that they will not use the discretion where there is an allegation of family violence, which this case would qualify under.
I very much doubt that the Crown got involved in this as it just isn’t serious enough for them. Most likely they simply asked the section supervisor. It wouldn’t have gone through Youth Aid because the offender is an adult. At most they may have got an opinion from legal section, which has as much backbone as a jellyfish.
This is a case where the police did not have to charge the man but they did. It is the police who are responsible for this case being before the court, not the Crown nor CYPF.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Alan, the JPs will only be carrying over the bail conditions set by the District Court earlier. They don’t really have the ability to set new ones except by consent. Had the defendant challenged the condition then the file would most likely have been sent down to the list court for a judge to hear it.
Those sorts of bail conditions are a mixed bag. Sometimes it is just a carryover from the police bail, which can be weird in itself. I recently had to get a curfew removed on a theft case. The theft allegedly happened at 11am, but the arresting officer had imposed a curfew of 7pm until 7am! A condition of not to drink alcohol may mean the cops think he has a booze problem, or it may simply mean that he had consumed some alcohol on the night and they thought it might be responsible, or they might simply just not like him!
July 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
FES, unless there is a very good reason for that condition it simply seems a recipe for trouble as it will almost certainly be broken over the many months waiting for trial. Then any malevolent individual or official will be empowered to further make this poor guy’s life a misery.
Thus are the vulnerable ground down by the bureaucracy.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I agree totally, Alan. The problem is that the people who most need it (i.e. people with a booze problem) are the people who are most likely to breach the condition. Then, after a couple or so breaches, it is into the slammer you go until trial.
Without seeing the man’s criminal history, if he has one, I couldn’t say whether the condition is proper or not. I do know that more and more judges are refusing to impose that particular one.
Bail conditions are only supposed to be imposed if there is a good reason. They are too frequently asked for by police on a ‘what can we get away with’ attitude. Fortunately most the sergeants and lawyers who make up the Police Prosecutions Service are generally vigilant to getting rid of those dumb clauses. Some, sadly, still don’t seem to realise that they have what is called prosecutorial discretion and can dump the conditions without asking the officer in charge of the case for permission.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
NOtitocommentoften
Sigh When did I anything about a punch in the face.
Trouble is you lot cant/wont see the difference between the light slap on the legs I very occassionally( at most less than the fingers on one hand) gave my 2 children who are now fine adults and the beatings and bashings that occur everyday in households around the country.
At several times during the early debate I suggested I go to the Police and confess that on or around such and such a date I did smack my son or daughter to see what they would do.
If the law allowed for common sense they would tell me to piss off and stop wasting their time.
But if someone else who was vindictive reported me as in the pillow case then they can and would prosecute
All I and I assume others in the NO camp are asking is for a little common sense and that is to make a light smack ( as determined by a reasonable and sensible person) is not grounds for a prosecution.
Its not really that difficult to grasp
Except for the command and control freaks
July 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
you’re right, DPF, there is more to this case than this article suggests.
The alcohol issue is significant and being ordered to stay away from other family members is due to more than just ‘bad blood’.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Imagine being called up for jury service, giving up work time, and finding yourself adjudicating a pillow fight.
ridiculous.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Bananapants, do you speak out of personal knowledge? I simply ask because a bail condition requiring the defendant not to contact the complainant and witnesses is pretty standard in most cases.
Slightyrighty: Hmm. Hadn’t thought of it that way. Yes, very ridiculous! But if you were on the jury, would you acquit because it you saw it as a ridiculous charge, or would you convict because there was an actual assault?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
fuck if you were looking in and checking NZ out to live in, you wolld really think twice a man charged with a pillow offennce but boy racer /red necks attacking firemen in CHCH that centre of sheep bonking, nothing done , thick head sheep shaggers ITS A STRANGE OLD NZ WE LIVE IN.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
i blame the left, you
don’t get spurious lawsuits
in the states, do you?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Viz FE Smith’s reply:
“Slightyrighty: Hmm. Hadn’t thought of it that way. Yes, very ridiculous! But if you were on the jury, would you acquit because it you saw it as a ridiculous charge, or would you convict because there was an actual assault?”
If the Crown can meet the standard and present a case beyond reasonable doubt that assault was committed according to the tenets of the law, you would convict. Burdon of proof has been met. And how ridiculous in this instance. God, the amount of times my brother hit me over the head with a pillow…
We have an adversarial system where burdon of proof must be met by the prosecution; the defence does not need to attain the burdon of proof that the accused is not guilty.
Now here is the crux of the issue. Should we have an adversarial system where each side is pitted against each other with the objective of winning the case, or like the French, an inquisitorial system, aimed at getting to the truth of the matter.
Several current and very recent murder trials come to mind where IMO an inquisitorial system would have served the victim/victims family and public much better.
What about a system where there is an additional verdict of “not proven guilty” where this is more appropriate than being found innocent?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
We may yet test my assertion that juries are really there to say when they have to: “This is a crap law and we acquit.” That excellent feature does not exist in the inquisitorial system.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Sarkozygroupie: the inquisitorial system mostly refers to the investigation side of things, rather than the trial. In most (if not all) civil law systems, where the inquisitorial system is used, they still have a jury to decide on guilt or innocence during a trial where the witnesses can be cross-examined by prosecution and defence counsel. So not much would actually change.
Don’t forget that the justice system is not designed to serve the ‘victim’. All of this focus on the idea of the ‘victim’ is only a very recent issue for either government or public. The issue for the justice system is whether a crime has been committed or not, and if it has what punishment should be handed out. End of story.
But are you saying that you don’t believe the jury should be able to bring in a ‘perverse’ verdict when it thinks it is warranted? Some of our greatest freedoms have been won when defence lawyers and the defendants they represent have been able to convince juries to do just that, in order to send a message to the government that it should not use the courts to play politics.
I do agree with you on the ‘not proven’ verdict being a good idea, though.