A high-profile public servant acquitted of assaulting his teenage son was granted permanent suppression of his name and occupation today.
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 jury of seven men and five woman returned its verdict after three hours' deliberation.
Following the verdict, both Crown and defence lawyers asked for continued name suppression.
Judge Harding said lifting an interim suppression order would "inevitably" lead to the identification of the man's son, whose name was already permanently suppressed.
It would also have adverse consequences on the man's reputation and work, the family's right to privacy, and their need "to heal their wounds".
There would be "little or no interest" in the case were it not for the man's position, Judge Harding said.
- NZPA
