Youth fined for assault

Press, 29 August 1986, Page 7

Youth fined for assault

A youth, now aged 17, was convicted after a hearing in the Children and Young Persons Court yesterday of assaulting a youth, aged 14, in New Brighton Mall late in the evening of March 7.

He was fined $l5O by Judge Mahon for this offence, and $lOO on a charge of -assaulting another youth the same evening. Evidence was that the victim of one assault, James Edward Love, died in hospital 3i/ 2 days after

the attack on him by the defendant and two companions, aged 15 and 16.

His death was found not to have been caused by the blows sustained in the attack, but from cerebral haemorrhage resulting from a congenital brain defect.

The defendant and his two companions originally had been charged with the manslaughter of James Love, but, at a preliminary hearing in

May, the Crown prosecutor sought reduced charges against the three, arising from the pathologist’s evidence of the cause of death.

The defendant in yesterday’s hearing was the third to have been convicted of an offence arising from the attack on James Love.

He was represented by Mr M. J. Knowles.

Sergeant W. P. Creasey prosecuted. The defendant, unemployed, who was 16 at the time of the attack, was charged with assaulting Love with intent to injure him. He denied this charge. After all evidence had been heard, Judge Mahon reduced the charge to one of assault, under the Crimes Act. The defendant pleaded guilty to this charge. Giving his decision after hearing the evidence, the Judge said the assault by the defendant in this horrifying incident was serious.

However, he said he was not satisfied that it had been proved that the defendant, in punching

and kicking Love, intended to cause injury. The Judge held, on the evidence, that the defendant did not initiate the attack on Love and Love’s companions.

The defendant had joined in the attack, and, according to evidence of a detective who interviewed him, and in a written statement he made, the defendant- said he punched Love twice “in the guts” and once in the head.

He ’ had then kicked Love in the face while Love was on the ground. The Judge held that these were the correct accounts of the defendant’s involvement, and not his evidence yesterday that he had punched Love once in the head, and aimed a kick at his back, but missed.

The Judge said the evidence showed that Love and two companions were set upon by the defendant and two of his friends.

Nothing in the evidence indicated Love provoked the attack on him; indeed, there was no evidence that he even sought to

defend himself in any way, other than to cover his head with his hands, after the initial assault by a person with the defendant.

Imposing the fines, the Judge said the defendant was a disgrace to his family, and race. His attack had been unprovoked. Had he been older the offence would have earned a substantial term of imprisonment. The Judge said he had regard to the penalties imposed on the defendant’s two associates. He said he hoped the defendant would reflect on what happened that evening, and make a determined resolve to never again be involved in such activities. Two charges, which the defendant denied, of intentionally damaging cars on January 24 were dismissed. The Judge said that, on the evidence, he believed the defendant probably was responsible for the offences. However, there was a reasonable doubt based on identification of the defendant as the offender.