Attack on child brings jail

Press, 22 June 1981, Page 13

Attack on child brings jail

PA Auckland A Mangere man has been sentenced to six months imprisonment for striking a boy, aged two, with plastic vacuum tubing, causing a fractured leg and severe bruising. Before Judge Gilliand in the District Court at Auckland was Alexander Waki Waipouri. aged 20. unemployed. He had previously pleaded guilty to wilfully illtreating a child in his care in a manner causing actual bodilv harm.

A clinical psychologist, Mr Pierre Beautrais. said that he had interviewed the defendant. Waipouri came from a large family where a lot of negative discipline was used. He had very little identity of his own. He professed a strong desire to have a large

family himself to love and be loved'by, and he wished to be liked by other people. He was a young and naive man who had taken on the responsibility of looking after several children with whom he had little emotional rapport. Mr Beautrais said he believed the defendant had unreasonably high standards of cleanliness, discipline, and nutrition. In trying to civilise and socialise the children he had reached breaking point.

Mr Beautrais said the defendant had reached a critical stage in his development as a human being. He had an excellent relationship with his de facto wife and he was industrious, but he needed help on how to conduct himself and to be taught stress and anger management.

If the defendant were not helped now he would become alienated and bitter. He did not think prison would be beneficial to the defendant. In sentencing Waipouri, the Judge said that the defendant had punished a boy’, aged two. by striking him with rigid plastic vacuum tubing several times. The child suffered a.fractured leg and severe bruising. He was not taken to hospital until two 'weeks later when the wound and. the child's condition had deteriorated. The defendant told lies to the hospital staff and the police, but he could not finally escape-the reality of the matter.

There was a strong public interest in offending against young children, he said. He was not satisfied that the defendant would qot have known or realised that such a young child should not be struck in such a manner. It could be that the incident was explained by Waipouri's background, but he did not see it as necessarily excusing what the defendant had done, the Judge said.