4. TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
How many parents or caregivers have been charged with child abuse under the Crimes Act 1961 in the last 5 years?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police) Link to this
There is no offence of child abuse as such under the Crimes Act. Child abuse is covered under a number of different offences, and the system does not currently identify statistically the percentage of the victims who are children. There is, however, a specific section—section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, which is assault on a child under the age of 14—under which 287 offenders were convicted in 2005. Again, the statistics do not identify how many of those offenders were parents or caregivers.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
Does the Minister agree with this statement made by an experienced lawyer, Michele Wilkinson-Smith, in her excellent article in the New Zealand Herald on Tuesday: “I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that—unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59 … I’ve had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I’ve never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: ‘Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.’ ”; and as there have been only about three cases where defendants have been acquitted on the basis of section 59, does that not reveal that the law is already working well, and that the police should be required to get on with the job of upholding the current law by prosecuting real child abusers and not the good parents who will be criminalised by Sue Bradford’s bill if section 59 of the Act is repealed?
The opinion of a legal media journalist is just that—an opinion. It is quite clear—and it has been debated in this House over the last couple of weeks—that there are examples of section 59 being used successfully when there would not be a member in this House who would regard the use of force, using implements, as being reasonable.
Jill PettisWhat discretion do the police have in respect of a decision as to whether to prosecute someone for a minor assault?
The police have considerable discretion. Very minor offending will not generally result in a decision to prosecute. The police have to, for example, weigh up whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, taking into account the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence. Offences of the latter type will hardly ever reach court.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
Does the Minister hear the warning given by Michele Wilkinson-Smith, when she stated: “The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community—and their children.”—and that will mean many in the Pacific community, which explains its widespread opposition to the Sue Bradford bill—if not, what assurances can the Minister give that good parents who are working hard to raise and correct their children will not be unnecessarily investigated by the police and Child, Youth and Family?
I think we can say with quite strong confidence that good parents are not going to be prosecuted under the new section 59, as set out in the bill. The reason for that is that the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it absolutely clear that minor forms of offending will not be prosecuted. Further to that, there is case law— R v Hende in 1996—where the Court of Appeal itself ruled that a light smack did not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine. It is clear from Crown Law guidelines, police guidelines, and case law that good parents will not be so prosecuted.