Girl not guilty of assault

Press, 28 March 1980, Page 7

Girl not guilty of assault

A charge against a girl, aged 17, of assaulting a 16-year-old girl with intent to injure her, on December 2, was dismissed after a depositions hearing in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The defendant, Fiona Mary Emslie, had denied the charge and elected trial by jury. -' The prosecution alleged that the defendant, Fiona Mary Emslie, assaulted the girl with a Ikg hammer. After hearing depositions of evidence from four prosecution witnesses Mr J. C. Cottrell and and Mrs J. A. Hendrie, Justices of the Peace, held there was not sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial. Mr E. Bedo represented the defendant

At an earlier scheduled date for the depositions in January the 16-year-old complainant did not appear in answer to her summons as a witness, and the hearing was adjourned to yesterday. She did not appear for the start of the hearing yesterday and she was eventually brought to the Court late in the morning by the police, after Detective Sergeant B. Roswell had said that if she could not be located a warrant for her arrest would be sought. In evidence yesterday the complainant said the defendant had hit her -with a hammer during a fight. She thought she had received two hits on the forehead. Asked by Detective Sergeant Roswell if she did not wish the defendant to get into trouble over this matter the complainant said it was not all the fault. Cross-examined by Mr Bedo she said that when she

was hit by the hammer the blows did not hurt She agreed that the injuries could have been from the fight and not the hammer, Mr Bedo called no evidence but submitted. that it would be “dangerous” to commit the defendant for trial. ■He submitted that the evidence of the doctor who examined the complainant at Christchurch Hospital should be disregarded because of the “technical fault” in her evidence in that she was not able to identify whom she had attended at the hospital. The defendant had also been very seriously prejudiced in testing the evidence relating to her interview at the police station because one constable had interviewed her, but the notes were recorded by another, who had given.evidence.

Mr Bedo also submitted that the girl complainant would say “virtually whatever was "put in her mouth.” She was obviously' easily led, either by the prosecution or defence. The Justices of the Peace held that evidence of an intention to injure was not clearly brought out.

There was also a lack of evidence about who started the fight.