10

Civil Servant used Section 59 Defence

by Whaleoil on May 24, 2010

The “Civil Servant” who wants to remain hidden got off his charges today, and now I get an inkling as to why he wanted to remain anonymous.

A high-profile public servant acquitted of assaulting his teenage son has been given permanent suppression of his name and occupation.

A Wellington District Court jury this afternoon found the man not guilty of one charge of assaulting his son in August 2008.

The Crown alleged the man dragged his son down Manners Mall in the central city and pushed him into his car, where he repeatedly punched him in the head because he stole $700 from his mother.

The teenager told police he had been assaulted eight months after the incident, but retracted his allegations last week under oath, saying he had made up the assault.

Crown prosecutor Paul Dacre said the boy’s initial statement had been correct and he had only changed it because he was intimidated by his father.

But defence lawyer Mike Antunovic said the jury should totally reject what the boy had said in his initial statement, as there was at least reasonable doubt that he was telling the truth.

The teenager had caused his parents much distress by regularly running away from home and getting into trouble, and the man’s sole focus was to get his son into the car to take him home.

Witnesses had mistaken the man removing his son’s bag, which had been bought with the stolen money, for the man hitting his son, Mr Antunovic said.

Judge Christopher Harding said the jury had to decide whether the man had lost his temper and deliberately hit his son, or whether he had used justifiable force for the purpose of corrective discipline.

Parents were justified in using reasonable force with their children to minimise harm or to prevent a criminal offence, he said in directions to the jury.

The Crown produced witnesses that says that this man smashed his son in the face with a fist repeatedly and he successfully uses Section 59 as a defence!!! The Judge said it, there it is in black and white.

No wonder he wants name suppression. This trial should be an outrage not for the fact that a top civil servant wants anonymity but for the fact of his job and the defence he has used.

It is an outrage that Wellington District commander Superintendent Pieri Munro has hidden behind name suppression after he was reported on more than two years ago. It is contemptible that a Judge would create the appearance of justice hidden and it is contemptible that a top Police Officer thinks that it is justifiable to suggest that punching his son in the face is justifiable force for the purpose of corrective discipline.

I support parents smacking their kids but this was a case of a late teen son being allegedly assaulted by his father, a top police officer. How on earth can a Judge direct a jury in such a manner.

It is cases like this that bring outrage and suspicious on the court case, not some blogger naming someone who would really rather prefer to be hidden. This case makes our Justice system appear to be utterly corrupted in favour of the establishment, in favour of Police, in favour of celebrity and in favour of fame.

If I have to go to jail for three months to show up this outrage then so be it.

Tagged: • •

Related posts

  • P1LL

    good on you Cam ! its about time this old boy network is crushed :thumbs up:
    PS: when you get down buddy , think about all the good you are doing and how you will make change ! because no one else has got the balls to do it

  • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/members/donkey/ donkey

    nice work Cam – just something a little different – why does this guy not sort out other lieing thieves like his pile of shit son?

  • giblet

    A small but important point, cops are neither civil servants, nor public servants, and it is wrong of the media to describe him as such in order to further conceal his occupation. The terms are reserved for those departments and agencies that come under the State Services Act, and sworn Police officers do not.

    Teachers are also not Public Servants or Civil Servants, but the media would never describe a teacher before the courts with name suppression as a Public Servant or a Civil Servant. Even with name suppression the media would still describe them as a teacher.

    Double standards here.

  • dorkusjuice

    i bet this little shit thinks twice before he steals money off his parents these days. i’m 100% behind this guy and if this sort of full stop was applied to more of these little darlings then maybe there’d be a lot less fuckwits running around, doin things like throwing bottles at old ladies from moving cars. I’m sure with the benefit of hindsight the young buck will see the merit of daddy’s actions. Maybe if other parents had taken similar actions there’d be a few less malcontented bloggers around. The verdict is NOT GUILTY- deal with it and enjoy your time with your new room mate ‘Touchy Tom’.

  • giblet

    What is just as bad is that the Cop was suspended on full pay for something like a year while the matter was before the Court. So we the taxpayer are the only true victims in this case.

  • pwebb

    Good to see Whale you agreeing that violence against young people should never be accepted.

    Perhaps Sue Bradford should have gone further and any use of force against another should have been banned. From your description it is wrong that the defence should have been used.

  • countiesfan

    I am certain that the Judge commenting on “corrective discipline” would be referring to the dragging back to the car and the struggling over the bag as claimed by the defendant. No judge in the universe would have made the direction that punches to the face would be fine as long as the defendant didn’t lose his temper.
    Cam you mislead intentionally. Stick to outing the fiddlers.

  • jocko
  • http://booktragic.blogspot.com pauleastbay

    If he had punched the kid in the face repeatidly the charge would have been alot more serious that that of asssult.

    Also one of the reasons this even ended up in Court will have been because Munro is in the police. They police are that scared after the Rickards affiar that everyone gets charged, other wise some people would be blogging flat out ,not here nescessarily about one law for some and one law for others, so the hierarchy let the courts decide

    Unforunately you don’t mention the credibility of the witnesses that allegedly saw all this carry on.

    Also the judge has to give the jury directions.

    Also Munro is not “high profile” he has a senior rank but you wouldn’t know him from Adam if you bumped into him

  • sassycassy

    The Dom Post article has now “disappeared” (Im sure it was there very recently) but I thought i read last year that a key witness was a cop – who at the time (2008) was an employee at either Dwights or Gordons (at the area where the incident of “justifiable force” took place) (?) If so, there’s a rookie cop with a big future?!