Decision reserved in boulder case

Press, 7 August 1976, Page 5

Decision reserved in boulder case

Decision was reserved until Tuesday by Mr E. S- J. Crutchley, S.M., yesterday on a charge against a boy, aged 16, of injuring a woman in circumstances in which, if death had occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter. The boy allegedly rolled a boulder down the Port Hills, injuring a woman travelling in a car along the Summit Road.

The boy pleaded not guilty through his counsel, Mr G. E. Langham, in the Christchurch Children and Young Persons Court on Thursday. Seven prosecution wit-

nesses anc two defence wit-1 nesses gave evidence in the! two-dav hearing. It con-! eluded yesterday after submissions by counsel and the police prosecutor, Sergeant J. R. Palmer.

During the hearing yesterday, the Magistrate, counsel, and the police prosecutor visited the scene of the incident. The boy’s name has been suppressed. Evidence was given on Thursday that the woman, Mrs Annette Marie Hayward, had been discharged from hospital, but still suffered pains and might be permanently paralysed in an upper leg. The court was told a 74kg boulder crashed through the front window of the car. Under cross-examination yesterday, the defendant said he had been to the area between 20 and 30 times previously, although not often on a Sunday afternoon. On previous occasions there had not been much traffic on the road The defendant said he had not imagined the boulder would go onto the roadway. It seemed to be heading for the trees. He heard a crash after rolling the boulder, but did not hear the sound of breaking glass, he said. To Mr Langham, the defendant said that he had not pushed the boulder intentionally towards the road. He had thought it would roll into the trees. A Christchurch solicitor said in evidence that he had inspected the area of the alleged incident. The road was not visible from where the boulder was pushed. There

[ was evidence that the rock [had been deflected on its [way down the hill. In his submissions, Mr Langham said there was no unlawful act of any description in the case; pushing a boulder down the hill was not a forbidden act. In no way, he said, could the boulder have been described as an inherent danger. Once pushed and having taken the course it did, it clearly became dangerous, but at that stage it was no longer under the control of the defendant.

Mr Langham said the age of the defendant, and the events leading up to the boulder's being pushed, were relevant and must be taken into account.

Evidence from some witnesses had shown that this act was not of such a nature that it would inevitably subject persons to danger, he said. The defendant had no intent or foresight that danger would result. If the boulder had taken its normal course it would have gone between trees and shrubs. The defendant admitted pushing the boulder and regretred it very much, said counsel, but the charge in these circumstances was the inappropriate one to bring. Sergeant Palmer said the defendant’s pushing of a boulder of size down a steep hill, knowing that traffic used the road below, w.as a gross case of an unlawful act. To suggest that the pushing of a boulder of that size was not an unlawful act was, in his opinion, ludicrous.

A person who did such a thing had a legal duty to ensure that there was no danger to life. Common sense dictated that the boulder was a very dangerous thing, end it was the defendant’s legal duty to take reasonable precautions. It vzas a Sunday afternoon, and the highway was busy. Surely, said Sergeant Palmer, this must have been known to the defendant. He was working and, in his own words, was “no longer a child.”

A boy of that age must have known that to push a boulder that size down a hill was dangerous and grossly negligent, said Sergeant Palmer. He submitted that in the circumstances the right charge had been laid.