CONVICTIONS QUASHED

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30831, 17 August 1965, Page 20

CONVICTIONS QUASHED

Two Assault Charges

Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday allowed the appeal of Charles George Debenham, aged 38, a plumber (Mr J. B. Williams), against conviction on charges of assaulting his wife at Cheviot on July 14 and 15. Mr N. R. Morgan appeared for the Crown. Debenham was convicted on the charges in the Magistrate’s Court on July 19, and on July 26 was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment and 12 months’ probation. His Honour said that in effect submissions were made on Debenham’s behalf that there was no evidence on which it could be found beyond reasonable doubt that Debenham committed either offence.

The first alleged that Debenham punched his wife on the chest during a scuffle in Debenham’s bedroom. There were no witnesses. The second alleged that Debenham hit his wife over the head with a gumboot after quarrelling and offensive behaviour by him and her retaliation by throwing his footwear out into the rain. There were two witnesses, an 11-year-old son and a neighbour, who, though she did not see the alleged offence, gave evidence on two matters.

It was clear from the Magistrate’s words in his decision that the evidence of the complainant on the first offence did not take him beyond a reasonable doubt. In respect of the second offence the Magistrate’s words indicated that he was not wholly satisfied by the evidence of the boy. What appeared to have taken the Magistrate’s mind beyond reasonable doubt was a statement Debenham made after arrest while being taken from Cheviot to Christchurch. He had said that if he had known that that was the way his wife was going to go, then he would have given her a bloody sound hiding and made his arrest worth while. That was consistent with a minor assault having been committed, his Honour said. It was equally consistent with the possibility that, being innocent and having been arrested, Debenham would have done something which would have made it worth while being arrested. Once the credibility of the second proposition was considered, it introduced a reasonable doubt as to what the words meant. His Honour said he was unable to find the necessary confirmation of what the prosecution alleged, and he was sure that if the Magistrate had looked at it in that way he would have arrived at a similar decision. His Honour quashed both convictions.