Sunday, 03 December 2023
KaitaiaWhangareiDargavilleAucklandThamesTaurangaHamiltonWhakataneRotoruaTokoroaTe KuitiTaumarunuiTaupoGisborneNew PlymouthNapierHastingsDannevirkeWhanganuiPalmerston NorthLevinParaparaumuMastertonWellingtonMotuekaNelsonBlenheimWestportReeftonKaikouraGreymouthHokitikaChristchurchAshburtonTimaruWanakaOamaruQueenstownDunedinGoreInvercargill
NZ HeraldThe Northern AdvocateThe Northland AgeThe AucklanderWaikato HeraldBay Of Plenty TimesRotorua Daily PostHawke's Bay TodayWhanganui ChronicleThe Stratford PressManawatu GuardianKapiti NewsHorowhenua ChronicleTe Awamutu CourierVivaEat WellOneRoofDRIVEN Car GuideThe CountryPhoto SalesiHeart RadioRestaurant Hub
Voyager 2023 media awards
Subscribe

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.
Home / New Zealand

Smacking law has criminalised parents - top lawyer

Simon Collins
By
Simon Collins
17 Nov, 2014 01:40 AM5 mins to read
Saveshare

Share this article

facebookcopy linktwitterlinkedinredditemail
It is illegal for parents to use force against a child for the purpose of correction, even if the force is "reasonable". Photo / Thinkstock

It is illegal for parents to use force against a child for the purpose of correction, even if the force is "reasonable". Photo / Thinkstock

Leading public lawyer Mai Chen says New Zealand's 2007 changes to smacking law have criminalised "good parents".

A legal opinion signed by Ms Chen for the lobby group Family First says case law since Section 59 of the Crimes Act was changed have confirmed that is now illegal for parents to use force against a child for the purpose of correction, even if the force is "reasonable".

"Therefore, in our opinion, statements made by politicians to the effect that the new Section 59 does not criminalise 'good parents' for lightly smacking their children are inconsistent with the legal effect of Section 59 and the application of that section in practice," the opinion says.

Ms Chen and her firm Chen Palmer declined to comment on the opinion, but Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the law should be changed again, in line with the Australian state of Victoria, to clarify that "light smacking" should be allowed as long as it did not involve either the use of implements or hitting a child's head or neck.

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

"We are calling for the decriminalisation of light smacking. Eighty-eight per cent of New Zealanders called for that in a referendum [in 2009]," he said.

Police reviews show that police investigated 143 alleged cases of "smacking" and 435 allegations of minor acts of physical discipline, such as slapping and hitting children, in the first five years of the new law up to June 2012.

Eight cases of smacking and 47 alleged minor acts of physical discipline were prosecuted. Most parents convicted on these charges were sentenced to minor penalties such as supervision or suspended sentences, No one was jailed, and the most severe penalty reported was 200 hours of community service for a father who was drinking at the time, struck his son across the back of the head with an open hand causing him to fall forward and start crying, and then pulled him backwards and told him to go to sleep.

The new Section 59 states in subsection 1 that parents are justified in using force that is "reasonable in the circumstances" against a child to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person, to stop the child committing a criminal offence, to stop "offensive or disruptive behaviour", or to perform "the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting".

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

But it adds: "Nothing in subsection 1 or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

Another subsection adds: "To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child... where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."

Chen Palmer found two cases where parents were convicted in lower courts but the Court of Appeal discharged them without conviction on the grounds that the consequences of conviction were "out of proportion to the gravity of offending".

In one case, a mother asked her husband to hit their son with a belt after a sexual incident with a younger female cousin. Both parents lost their jobs because of their convictions, and the Appeal Court found in 2012 that this was "out of all proportion" to the offending, which came after the parents had sought help to cope with the child's attention deficit disorder and had tried several non-physical measures.

Related articles

New Zealand|Crime

How did domestic violence inquiry get $7 billion figure wrong?

10 Nov 04:00 PM
New Zealand

MSD hints at superannuation review

12 Nov 12:48 AM
New Zealand|Education

Teacher's life-changing aid

13 Nov 04:00 PM
New Zealand|Politics

State houses sitting on goldmine

14 Nov 04:00 PM

In the other case, the Appeal Court last year overturned the conviction of a father who smacked his two sons a total of about a dozen times in two and a half years. It said the consequences of conviction, which included losing custody of his sons and "real consequences for his employment", were "out of all proportion to the gravity of offending".

However, convictions have stood against a father who slapped his 13-year-old daughter on her leg after she was found in a car with her 16-year-old boyfriend, and a grandmother who used her foot to restrain her 3-year-old grandchild who threw a tantrum at a playground.

Chen Palmer commented: "As a result, non-lawyers, including parents and the police, will have difficulty applying Section 59 in practice. Parents will struggle to know whether their actions constitute an offence under Section 59 or not, and in cases of doubt, police will prosecute and leave it up to the Court to determine."

Children's rights lawyer Alison Cleland said the Chen Palmer opinion missed the point that children should have the same rights as adults not to be assaulted.

"What you have is a legal opinion that says yes, you have made it a criminal offence. Of course it has - big deal," she said.

"You have due process, and the Court of Appeal shows that. You have checks and balances there, like you do with anything else."

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

On the web: familyfirst.org.nz

Saveshare

Share this article

facebookcopy linktwitterlinkedinredditemail

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

Latest from New Zealand

New Zealand|Crime

Privacy Commissioner asks police to pause future use of controversial DNA tool

03 Dec 05:24 AM
New Zealand

Respecting your Rights - Health and Disability Commissioner

New Zealand

McKinley Brown might be small, but she has a big story to tell

03 Dec 05:00 AM
New Zealand

'Terrifying event': Two women seriously injured in violent home invasion

03 Dec 04:38 AM

Top toys of 2023 for kids & ‘kidults’

sponsored

Advertisement

Advertise with NZME.

Latest from New Zealand

Privacy Commissioner asks police to pause future use of controversial DNA tool

Privacy Commissioner asks police to pause future use of controversial DNA tool

03 Dec 05:24 AM

Police are trialling the tool on two of the country's most high-profile cases.

Respecting your Rights - Health and Disability Commissioner

Respecting your Rights - Health and Disability Commissioner

McKinley Brown might be small, but she has a big story to tell

McKinley Brown might be small, but she has a big story to tell

03 Dec 05:00 AM
'Terrifying event': Two women seriously injured in violent home invasion

'Terrifying event': Two women seriously injured in violent home invasion

03 Dec 04:38 AM
Toy trends for Christmas
sponsored

Toy trends for Christmas

About NZMEHelp & SupportContact UsSubscribe to NZ HeraldHouse Rules
Manage Your Print SubscriptionNZ Herald E-EditionAdvertise with NZMEBook Your AdPrivacy Policy
Terms of UseCompetition Terms & ConditionsSubscriptions Terms & Conditions
© Copyright 2023 NZME Publishing Limited
TOP