$400 fine for assault

Press, 26 March 1981, Page 8

$400 fine for assault

A farm manager earlier convicted of assaulting his wife and presenting a 12gauge shotgun at her was fined $4OO when he appeared for sentence before Judge Frampton in the District Court yesterday. The man, who was granted final suppression of his name, was also put on probation for 12. months during which time :he is to undertake such treatment or counselling as may be directed. The Judge, who said at the outset of his remarks that he did not intend to impose a prison sentence, said he accepted that there had been domestic problems which came to a head at the time of the offending. Anyone in the courtroom would concede that if put under enough emotional pressure anyone was likely to reach a breaking point, the subsequent actions of which were unpredictable, tin Judge said. However, regardless of the cause of the offending, the experience for the defendant’s wife must have been “terrifying,” said the Judge. Earlier the defendant had admitted and been convicted of the offences which took place on March 4 and 6. The defendant, after a domestic dispute, ’ had presented the rifle at his wife, pointed it at her, pulled the trigger and had threatened to shoot her. Two days later he had forcibly removed his wife' from his mother’s, home, had driven off at a dangerous speed, had then stopped and dragged her from the vehicle and had tied her to a nearby fence post. He then told his wife he was going to get the children, line them up and finish them off also.

Counsel (Mr K. N. Hampton) submitted that the offending arose out of a domestic situation and that as a result a 13-year-old marriage was over.

His client was a person not normally given to violence of any sort. It would seem that the offences were really 'a “boiling-over of his emotions.” The defendant was of everyday character, hardworking, honest, and a selfmade. man whose ambition was to own a farm of his own and he had achieved this, said Mr Hampton. His client thought his wife was neglecting rather than supporting him and this had built up the tensions which led to the offences.

Mr Hampton said his client now had alternative accommodation to go to if released into the community. He submitted that it was in nobody’s interest that the defendant be sent to prison. CANNABIS CHARGE

Colin Frederick Walter, aged 18, a plastic worker, was remanded without plea to March 27 on a charge of selling cannabis. The alleged offence,- involving the sale of cannabis plant to a person under the age of 18, took place between February 1 and 23. An application by counsel (Mr M. J. Glue) for interim suppresion of the defendant’s name, was declined by the Judge. DRUG CHARGE -A labourer charged with selling cannabis to a person over the age of 18 was remanded on bail of $lOOO to April 22. No plea was entered to this charge or another of possessing cannabis plant by Phillip Pophristoff, aged 20 (Mr S. G. Barber).

The alleged offence occurred in Christchurch on March 20. BENCH WARRANT A warrant was issued for the arrest of Tangi Watene after his non-appearance on a charge of receiving. Watene, aged 21, a labourer (Mr J. R. Knowles), is charged with receiving a radio cassette, a travel bag, and a coin collection, to a total value of $5OO. The offence is alleged to have taken place on March 15. 29 OFFENCES A 30-year-old housewife who admitted 29 charges of using a Department of Social Welfare payment order to obtain a pecuniary advantage, was convicted and remanded at large to April 8 for a probation report and sentence. Sarah Ruby Tafaese, committed the offences in the Hamilton area during 1978 and 1979.

Sergeant J. D. Ell said before the offending the defendant and her de facto husband were living in the Hamilton area.

The de facto husband was in receipt of an unemployment benefit. He later obtained employment but the defendant had cashed her husband’s payment order 1 on 29 occasions and had received $1312, said Sergeant Ell. She had also falsified departmental declarations to the effect. there was no change in her de facto husband’s position. In'explanation, the defendant had told the police, she had been pregnant at the time. Her de facto husband was on a small wage and she needed money to obtain basic necessities, said Sergeant Ell. Compensation of $1312 was sought from the defendant.