Woman who hit teenage son during argument over technology ban wins conviction appeal – ABC News

Search the news, stories & people
Personalise the news and
stay in the know
Emergency
Backstory
Newsletters
中文新闻
BERITA BAHASA INDONESIA
TOK PISIN
By Elizabeth Byrne
Topic:Courts
The Queanbeyan District Court was told the incident occurred during an argument between the woman and her son about a technology ban. (ABC News: Ian Cutmore)
A woman previously charged for hitting her 13-year-old son while chastising him for disobeying a technology ban has successfully appealed her conviction.
The NSW District Court heard the boy texted his father after the incident, who called the police on his ex-partner, leading to the charge against her.
Judge Robert Sutherland could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the woman had been reckless in hitting her son or if it was an accident.
A New South Wales woman who hit her teenage son during an argument over a technology ban has won her appeal against her conviction over the incident.
If you need help immediately call emergency services on triple-0
The Queanbeyan District Court heard the two had been arguing about the issue when the family sat down for dinner when she continued to chastise her son for disobeying a technology ban.
Judge Robert Sutherland said things escalated and the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, went to hit the boy on the shoulder but he ducked.
He said when she hit him again he moved and she landed on the back of his neck.
The court was told the boy lived between his mother's home and his father's after an acrimonious break-up some years before.
At some point during the argument the boy sent a text to his father asking to be picked up because he didn't want to be at his mother's house.
Judge Sutherland said the phone was eventually confiscated and hidden, so that when the boy's father rang him back he didn't answer.
The father then rang police, prompting a visit by two officers who came to the house for a welfare check.
Judge Sutherland said later the boy was taken by police to make a statement, which led to the court action against his mother.
His step-grandmother stayed with him during his interview.
Judge Sutherland questioned if the presence of boy's step-grandmother may have had an impact on his account.
"I have found this case troubling," Judge Sutherland said.
"The circumstances of the welfare check [by police] … is concerning."
He said that was especially so when the officers spoke to the boy, but provided no evidence about what was said in the exchange.
"There's little doubt there was a parental exchange … between a mother and a 13-year-old adolescent," Judge Sutherland said.
Judge Sutherland said he had to weigh up if the woman had been reckless in hitting her son, or if it was simply an accident.
In the end he dismissed the charge, saying he couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt that the woman had been reckless.
Topic:Supermarkets
Topic:Federal Government
Topic:Courts
Topic:Child Abuse
Topic:Libraries, Museums and Galleries
Topic:Federal Government
Topic:Child Abuse
Topic:Local Government
ACT
Canberra
Courts
Topic:Supermarkets
Topic:Federal Government
Topic:Courts
Topic:Child Abuse
Topic:Libraries, Museums and Galleries
Topic:Courts
Topic:Carnivals and Festivals
LIVE
Topic:Courts
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn, and work.
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time)

source

About The Author

admin

See author's posts