The pillow attack case
The pillow attack case is interesting because t both can and can not be linked to the S59 debate. The Herald reports:
A judge has thrown out an assault case against a man who threw a cushion at his nephew’s head following an argument with the boy’s mother.
George Taylor was accused of assault last New Year’s Eve following an argument about whether the mother of the 6-year-old was being overprotective of her children.
He threw a small decorative cushion at his nephew’s head, and although the mother did not see the incident, she called the police. …
At the hearing, the boy, who was speaking from behind a protective screen shielding him from the accused, told the court that the pillow strike had not really hurt and that he felt no ill-will towards his uncle.
The boy said he had been hit on the top of the head, had not been injured and had not been sore.
Now in a literal sense, this case has nothing to do with S59 as the defendent was an uncle, not a parent. In fact it is due to the complaint from a parent, that it proceeded at all. So some would argue it is protecting parents rights.
However others may argue that as the law now places parents on much the same platform as all other adults, a parent may now have to fear a pillow fight leading to charges. Personally I think that is over-reaching, as the key thing here is it is the parent, not the child, who insisted on charges.
Yesterday in court, the judge said a trial would potentially damage the boy and dismissal of the case was in the overall interests of justice.
The judge also blasted the police as “ridiculous” and “petty” for bringing action against Mr Taylor.
This is the aspect that will cause more legitimate concern amongst opponents of the anti-smacking law. The Government and PM puts great stock in the discretion available to Police. When you see the Police applying such discretion badly, it makes you nervous.
On the other hand, the system worked. The court correctly threw it out and reamed the Police. But a pity Mr Taylor had to go through a year of stress over something that should never have been a criminal matter.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:59 am
WTF?
That’s going to be a happy family long term ain’t it?
Haven’t the police got something better to do like….Idunno…prosecuting Nick Smith for wasting $110,000,000,000 on a ponzi scheme?
December 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Why on earth would the prosecution apply for the child to be screened from his uncle in a case like this? Although a separate application is required by law, it seems that anything other than giving evidence in the normal way would be just plain stupid. If the defence lawyer opposed it (which I would have if I were defending) then a hearing would have been required just to decide that point! Talk about the prosecution wasting the court’s time witha completely pointless case.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:04 am
The system worked…sort of. But I seriously doubt this case would’ve been taken prior to the s59 change.
The police should’ve asked the mother: “What’s your motivation for making this complaint?”. They allowed themselves to be used by her. You have to feel very sorry for the child in this case – the boy has a mother who is willing to drag him through the courts in order to make some obscure point. Pathetic.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Actually, when I think about this case, it seems to me that this would probably have been classed as domestic violence and the police would have considered themselves unable to exercise their discretion not to prosecute.
Which shows how stupid that policy is.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:45 am
From a TV interview it appears that the accused had a bit of criminal history. The police were probably more influenced by that than by the pillow incident itself. But I agree with ross that this case would not have been taken prior to the s59 change.
Poor judgment this time on the part of the police, and potentially something of a worry when it comes to use of discretion with the anti-smacking law.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
“On the other hand, the system worked”
No. This is an example of the system not working.
A working system would have seen the police tell the Mother to piss off and not waste their time for complaining about a pillow being thrown at somebody
December 4th, 2009 at 8:29 am
How would you like to be the kid going through high school being the little nancy whose mummy went to the cops over being hit with a pillow?
December 4th, 2009 at 8:35 am
“…had to go through a year of stress over something that should never have been a criminal matter.”
And that’s the whole point and substance of objections to the current law.
David, sometimes I wonder whether you can see the wood for the trees.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
“On the other hand, the system worked. The court correctly threw it out and reamed the Police. But a pity Mr Taylor had to go through a year of stress over something that should never have been a criminal matter.”
Yet our gutless socialist PM says the ‘law is working perfectly well’.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:51 am
How much money did this senseless case cost and how much stress did the uncle ( the victim in this case) have to go through? How much was the defense lawyer? What about the child? No, this is a complete failure and I hope it adds fuel for the argument against this anti-smacking law. While this case was going on, killings like the Kahui twins will continue to be pumped out of our society because this government is contributing and looking the other way. The biginning of communism, Sue Bradford’s dream is coming true.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am
FES highlights and in irony – if the mother had thrown the pillow and the uncle complained to police they would have been able to exercise discretion under S59. So should domestic violence directives need to come into line with S59 which, dare I say it, has some common sense attached?
December 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am
The Police are the party with the real problem and this was always to be the difficulty from the Key compromise. I got told to ’stand down’ from my submission by Chester Borrows advising them on the Domestic Violence (Safety Enhancement) Bill on this very point. The problem about DV is NZ does not realise and perpetuates its using the wrong language. The Police with their new tasers are armed to face the new front of increased requirement for them to remove individuals (men) from DV where someone threw a pillow. You are not allowed to argue anymore – we do not like it and one day everyone will realise it is unlawful –
– yeah right
December 4th, 2009 at 9:06 am
The case was silly. The police were silly.
And he, Mr Taylor, was silly.
By that I mean this: he and the boy’s mother were apparently arguing about her alleged over-protectiveness towards her kids.
They are not his kids. He is uncle. He had no business making comments about how she raised her kids.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:24 am
jackp: if the defence lawyer was legally aided, then to take the case to depositions would see the cost in the order of $500 to $800 depending on whether bail was opposed originally. If so, then go for then go for the higher end of that, if not and disclosure was minimal (which I would expect) then the lower end.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Unfortunately the average member of the Constabulary is fairly ignorant and thick.
Accordingly it is never a good idea to give them discretion in these (or any other) matters in the same way you would not encourage a mechanic to undertake a heart operation on you.
I feel so sorry for this Taylor chap; having to go through enormous amounts of stress because Helen Clark and Sue Bradford wanted to get their own back on the bullies from school.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
December 4th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“Helen Clark and Sue Bradford wanted to get their own back on the bullies from school.”
More to do with their relationships with their fathers actually. (If it was any such influence.)
IMHO, the whole thing is driven by Marxist ideology that see the patriarchial family unit as an impediment to the imposition of socialist totalitarianism. Both Klark and Bradofrd were brainwashed with this message when they were at University.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I must admit that one of the highlights of the Right-wing blogs is Mr Redbaiter. In all seriousness, he makes me laugh, which is a good thing and helps me through the day.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
@Redbaiter – regardless of the political drive the patriarchal society is the intended victim. I think if it is easy to label a plan under a particular political doctrine then the sinister intent could be lost where the implementation is across the political spectrum. Gender displacement goes deeper than politics and now that we live in a feminist jurisprudence it will be very difficult for the bloke to come out of the closet.
The fact is that new ‘safe houses’ will be set up as half way houses to get the ‘bloke’ out of the house in DV situations and the ‘cause’ no mater its rationality will be excused because of the existence of ‘blokish’ (warrior gene) behavior.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Just out of interest Robert, how much do you spend each year on your dominatrix?
December 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I wonder if the charge was ‘assault with a weapon’ or ‘assault of a child’. As these carry jail tems of >3 months there is right of trial by jury. Legislation specifically excludes jury trials for ‘common assault’ even though it has a 6 month maximum. Prosecutors should stop wasting everybodies time and use the ‘common assault’ charge if the beak is unlikely to impose more than six months.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:59 am
The system worked?
Considering what Taylor and the child have been put through, and the shit loads of money wasted, I think that’s a generous description.
I’d say not only is she over-protective but that she’s also loopy, or shouldn’t I comment on her parenting TripeWryter?
December 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Technically, a tap on the shoulder could possible be seen as an assault under the current law – or even a stern telling off.
With Sue Bradford going around calling reasonable actions evil and violent, then to see parliament implement her wishes, the attitude in (many parts) of society has changed to one of zero tolerance.
In other words, this isn’t a S59 case, but it’s got its fingerprints all over it.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Just out of interest Robert, how much do you spend each year on your dominatrix?”
He gets it on ACC red. He has depandancey issues.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:07 am
s194 Assault on a Child, I suspect, Peterwn. Maximum sentence 2 years imprisonment. Not surpised the lawyer suggested going to jury trial with it- I would have given the same advice.
And I agree with your last sentence there completely.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:18 am
How do you know that?
December 4th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Who was the judge?
December 4th, 2009 at 11:37 am
The same police discretion that saw a 17 year old charged with theft of $2 from his sister? Police discretion is simply not that crash hot and should never be used as a justification for shit law.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Who would put a child through court over an incident with a pillow ? I would take that as evidence the mother’s a loon and shouldn’t have custody.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I’d say not only is she over-protective but that she’s also loopy, or shouldn’t I comment on her parenting TripeWryter?
Andrew W:
I was guessing about why they were arguing, and I said that.
But to answer you question: no.
How she brings up her kids, and how you do, if you have them, is your business, and no-one else’s.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
GPT1 11:37 am,
Exactly!
This case highlights the fact that the police will not/cannot show discretion in such cases.
They will defer to the courts, and hence you will get more of these type of cases.
The police are to enforce the law, not interpret it. This just highlights how bad and non specific this law is – and why we need to get rid of it.
As others have said; prior to Bradford’s Bill passing this would have never come before the courts.
John Key – are you listening?
December 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
No.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
TripeWryter,
While I agree giving unsolicited advice to parents can be like walking on egg shells, I don’t see giving advice, as opposed to imposing ones views on others, as something that should be a social taboo.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
But Kris, that’s the point of this case – the police have been criticised for exactly that, trying to enforce the law and for not using their discretion (which may have been difficult if the mother was adamant that charges should be laid).
I don’t see what this has to do with Bradford. She can’t be held responsible for every nutty mother.
This shows how hard it can be to get a fair all encompassing law.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Pete George 1:46 pm,
Police can only interpret clear, good law. When you have bad, unclear law they are in an awkward situation, and so defer to the courts.
Prior to Bradford’s Bill people, including the police, knew what reasonable force was regarding children. Today we do not from a legal framework. Any time there is a question mark in this regard it will be up to the courts to decide.
Apart from victimising the individual, in this case the uncle, we will also load up our court system (and perhaps prisons) with these ‘crimes’, while the real crimes go on unaddressed. Another byproduct will be increasing taxes for you and me.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
KK, get a clue, this case has NOTHING to do with S59 which deals with parental discipline, not uncles, aunties, dogs or cats.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
But But But We were told and promised this would not happen Bradford Clark and Key all said the Police would have discretion and that they were confident the Police would not waste the Courts time.
We were told this repeatedly
And it was a lie lie lie Its yet more bullshit from both sides.
We now have a government who has betrayed the people who elected to Ignored 87% of the citizens
Call that democracy You must be joking
December 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
what the hell are you guys on about. This has NOTHING to do with S59… jesus. Facepalms all round on here today
December 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
But the PM said: “Tthe ‘law is working perfectly well.”
Typical weasel words from the empty suit Neville Key.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
But the PM said: “The ‘law is working perfectly well.”
Typical weasel words from the empty suit Neville Key.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I was attacked by a waiter who dropped a bread roll on me at lunchtime. I’m so angry. Think I’ll press charges. I’ll need legal aid but that’s fine because I feel aggrieved. Hope you taxpayers are ok footing the bill.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
While I agree giving unsolicited advice to parents can be like walking on egg shells, I don’t see giving advice, as opposed to imposing ones views on others, as something that should be a social taboo.
Andrew: I do.
If I wanted the benefit of your advice I’d ask for it.
My guess is that that’s at the core of the matter. Ringing the police after the cushion was thrown was the only way to shut him up and get him off her back and out of her house.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
“My guess” correct, your guess, not sure how your guess fits in with the subsequent prosecution though.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Someone send Key the bill for the Police, Court and defendants time and costs?
If he believes the law is working as intended then he needs to feel the pain (or dollars) associated with cases where it clearly isn’t.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
How does THIS case have anything to with S59?
December 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Why do you think the Police decided to prosecute dickhead? alignment of the planet
December 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Under what part of S59 was this cas prosecuted?
[DPF: Idiot. No case is prosecuted under S59 as that is a defence section]
December 6th, 2009 at 9:29 am
You people don’t understand,going through the system is punishment in itself.
What else do you call something that costs a lot of money, and stress?
December 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
billyborker (929) 0 0 Says:
December 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Under what part of S59 was this cas prosecuted?
[DPF: Idiot. No case is prosecuted under S59 as that is a defence section]
No need for name calling because of my mis choice of words. Give yourself 10 demerits.
The true idiots are those like wreck1080 who thinks this has something to do with S59 when it has NOTHING at all to do with it, and yet I don’t see you calling them names. Fuckwit.