from horse whip, to riding crop, to bamboo cane

NB: this post has been updated
Some time ago you may remember I blogged about the case of a woman who was acquitted in a Timaru court for disciplining her child. The MSM originally reported that she was acquitted with assault using a horse whip and a bamboo cane. Then it emerged that she had never used a horsewhip, she used a riding crop. Child Youth and Family still have her child, even though his mother was acquitted. CYFS drugged the boy on Risperdal to control his behaviour. More on the case is here and over here and here.

I now have a copy of the charge and summary of facts.This woman, whose name is suppressed, was acquitted of using a cane on 22 October 2004, after her son misbehaved at school earlier that day. She was charged with assault with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. There was no mention of a riding crop on the charge sheet I was given.

The woman did, however use a riding crop on her son at a later date, before the criminal hearing, but, according to the the sheet I was sent, was never charged.

Anyway, I still have some unanswerd questions. I hope to contact the lawyers who handled the case tomorrow, and if anything else comes to light I`ll add or amend this post. Come back then.

In the meantime, people, get to it - make a submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the bill and get it in by the 28th February. Here's the text of the bill

update Just spoken with the lawyer. He`ll be sending somthing in writing. He said the second charge was acually added in by police (probably with the assistance of CYFS) after depositions to assist the prosecution - but as she pleaded not guilty, the summary was not read out to the court. I understand the summary of facts was not changed. Perhaps because it was not going to be read in court? Both incidents were discussed in court.

This was not a horse whip or riding crop case - it was a bamboo cane/riding crop case. The discpline was reasonable in the circumstances and that is all that matters. Particularly the circumstances. If S59 had been repealed, this woman would have a criminal record even though the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Sue Bradford needs to know that, under current legislation, it is the "reasonable force under the circumstances" that matters, more so than the implement used. Bradford doesn't want to know about the circumstances, but if her 14 year old was going to smash her partner's head in, I'm sure she`d take some sort of forceful action.

What kind of hodge-podge legal system do we have in this country? We have a charge of "assault on a child", a summary of facts that relates to just one of the charges. This summary of facts is not read out to the court. Child, Youth and Family employees lied in court.Politicians comment on the second charge only - which happened on a later date and was added by police after depositions. POliticians don't comment that CYFS have taken the child away after an acquittal, and have attempted to take the other child away also, do they?

The jury was none the wiser. Just as well there was an acquittal.

This case is a classic example as to why S59 of the Crimes Act must stay in some shape or form. It needs to be strengthened to state that it is illegal for Child Youth and Family to take kids away from smacking parents after an acquittal under S59.

(Its illegal anyway, but there needs to be consequences if CYFS continue to break the law).