Man for trial after death of child

Press, 16 December 1981, Page 4

Man for trial after death of child

A man accused of fatally beating his girl friend’s daughter, aged three, said in statements to the police that he never punched or kicked the girl, but that when he hit her she fell over a lot and hit her head. The statements were read in the District Court yesterday during the hearing of depositions of evidence of prosecution witnesses in a charge against Tony Joseph Walker, aged 21, unemployed, of murdering Aroha Hine Pattison, aged three, on September 22. The defendant, who denied the charge, was committed for trial in the High Court by Messrs C. A. Pilgrim and L. M. Hooker, Justices of the Peace. He was remanded in custody to February 1, 1982, pending a trial date. The hearing, which began on Monday, was completed yesterday with evidence of the remaining two witnesses, one a detective who interviewed and took statements from the defendant. Messrs N. W. Williamson and G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown, and Messrs K. N. Hampton and S. C. Barker for the defendant.

A pathologist’s evidence on Monday was that the girl died from cerebral haemorrhage, likely to have resulted from multiple blows to the head.

Bruises to the girl’s face, body, and limbs were detailed.

Police had been called to a suspicious death at the flat in Patten Street, Avonside. shared by the defendant and Judith Ann Pattison, and her daughter, Aroha, and son. Witnesses gave evidence of seeing bruising on the girl during the weeks and days before her death.

In a statement to Detective Sergeant J. A. Ell the defendant allegedly said he knew Aroha had a lot of bruises about the face at the time of her death. She probablyy got a few on her behind from where he had hit her.

It was possible she got some of the bruises playing with the dog which often knocked her over. The detective said that after this first statement he interviewed the defendant again. The defendant said he knew it would end up with his being blamed for the girl’s death, and said he knew he was too hard on her.

He said he loved the girl and never hit her head. He only smacked her on the bottom and she fell over every time he hit her, and struck her head. The defendant admitted that he had lied when he told ambulance officers and others that the girl had fallen down the stairs. He said he saw so many bruises on her face that he knew the' ambulance men would ask about these

The defendant had asked the detective how the girl died, and then said he had only hit her on the bottom: How could he have killed her?

He said everything had changed towards the girl when the shift was made to the Patten Street flat. He said he had a bit of a drinking problem. He had just changed but did not know why.

In another statement the defendant said he loved the girl and did not mean to hit her and thought what he was doing was right when he disciplined her. “I thought what I was doing was right. I did not know any other way,” his statement said.

Mr Hampton submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial.

, He contended that the Crown had not shown that the defendant inflicted the injuries which caused . the girl’s death, or that he inflicted the injuries with the necessary intent. He said the Court could not exclude, on the evidence, that other agencies caused

the injuries to ttje girl — in particular the accident in which a dog on a lead she held caused her to hit the side of a parked car and fall, striking her head. She had also fallen, hitting her head on a heater, after being chastised by the defendant.

Mr Hampton submitted there was also no evidence to prove that the defendant inflicted the injuries with murderous intent, or meaning to cause injury known by him as likely to cause death, and reckless as to whether death ensued or not. Mr Panckhurst submitted that there was sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial. He said the only inference from the evidence was that the girl was subjected to repeated blows of some force. Medical evidence was that the injuries were consistent with blows from the hand, inflicted not too long before her death, and causing haemorrhaging which led to her death. The Crown’s case was that there was a degree of recklessness as to whether or not the blows would cause death.