Couple cleared of broomstick beating

Press, 18 February 1989, Page 7

Couple cleared of broomstick beating

PA Wellington A Lower Hutt couple were acquitted in the Lower Hutt District Court at Lower Hutt of charges laid after the hospitalisation of a girl beaten with a broomstick last March. The couple, granted final name suppression, had been given care of the 14-year-old in January, 1988, by Social Welfare. The man, charged with injuring with intent, admitted during the fourday trial that he had disciplined the girl with a broomstick, but denied intending to cause her bodily harm. His de facto wife had been charged with being a party to the injuring. Character witnesses had given evidence on Wednesday that the actions seemed out of character for the couple, who had a long history of caring for the disadvantaged and needy, and who provided a warm, caring home.

Summing up, Judge Kerr said questions of race had "regrettably” been introduced into the trial when the case was “nothing to do with race,” but a matter of behaviour.

He said any suggestion that there were differing standards for Maori and Pakeha would be offensive to many people.

In his final submissions, defence counsel, Mr John

McLinden, had said the man recognised there was a new breed of young Maori people, who tended toward dishonesty and violence, and he wanted to prevent the girl, whom he regarded as being of his own blood, from being among them.

Mr McLinden said the girl’s past had shown she was dishonest and violent, and was failing to live up to standards appropriate for her family or her race.

He said the man had also been distressed by the girl’s apparent tendency toward promiscuity, and the beating had taken place because “he thought his crime would be not to act.”

The man had worked for many years with disadvantaged young people and had helped offenders, Mr McLinden said, and he asked the jury to not now add him and his de facto wife to “that table of Maori statistics.”

Crown prosecutor, Mr Grant Burston, said in his final submissions that the girl was 14, liked boys, was high spirited and strong willed, but there was no justification for a beating which put her in hospital. He said the accused were good people who had done a lot for the community, but that did not provide a defence for

their actions on this occasion.

They may have been genuinely provoked, but that was not a defence in the case either. “The Crown asks the jury as representatives of the New Zealand community to decide in no circumstances is it reasonable to put a child in hospital for four days by the use of force, and certainly not in these circumstances.”

After the jury returned a not guilty verdict, and the acquittal, Mr McLinden applied for final name suppression for the defendants.

He said they were heavily involved in welfare work in the Hutt Valley and publication of their names could lead to them losing credibility among those they dealt with. Mr Burston opposed final suppression in order that the public better understand the court’s decision.

Without knowing ■ who was involved, it was possible the public would regard the case as setting a precedent for the level of force that could be used on children under their care.

Judge Kerr said in the circumstances and particularly in the interests of the complainant he would order final suppression.