The Masterton child assault case

While I was against the Bradford law (and still are), I have no problems at all with the outcome in Masterton where a father has pleaded guilty to assault and been given nine months’ supervision, including parenting and anger-management courses.

To quote the Police:

The prosecutor in the case, Sergeant Garry Wilson, said police evidence included photos of bruises on the boy’s shoulder and buttocks.

“It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.

“The family have said that it wasn’t the first time,” he added.

The man, who pleaded guilty, told police that he had lost his temper and overreacted.

The boy’s mother was so concerned that she took photos of her son’s injuries and showed them to a relative, who contacted police.

The Borrows amendment (which was my preference as it gave certainty by defining what is reasonable force) would clearly have removed Section 59 as a defence for this offence.  It was quite clear that anything which left bruising would not be able to use Section 59. So if the Borrows amendment had been agreed to, this case would still have been prosecuted (as it should be).

It is arguable that even with no law change at all, this case may still have been prosecuted and won. But I had no problems with a law change to reduce the availability of Section 59 so it clearly would not apply to cases like this – I just thought the Borrows amendment was preferable to clearly exclude the trifling cases.