The allegation that a prominent sportsman recklessly broke a baby’s bones is “total rubbish”, the man’s lawyer says.
The defendant, who has name suppression, has spent the last three weeks on trial before the Dunedin District Court after pleading not guilty to injuring by reckless disregard, and an alternative assault charge.
The Crown alleged the man harmed the persistently unsettled infant during a moment of frustration while the child’s mother was at the gym on July 16, 2023.
Read the Crown’s closing argument below
He is accused of squeezing the baby, causing numerous rib fractures and a broken collarbone.
But in her closing address this afternoon, counsel Anne Stevens KC said such a sequence of events would require her client underwent a “personality transplant”.
“To suggest he could have a brain explosion because [the baby] was unsettled does not fit; it simply does not match the man,” she told the jury.
“There’s no evidence he was tired or at the end of his tether. There’s nothing out of the ordinary going on here.”
The testimony from witnesses who knew the defendant depicted him as a gentle, caring man, Mrs Stevens said.
One said the concept that he would hurt a baby was “laughable”.
Mrs Stevens was scathing too.
“I suggest [the Crown case] is total rubbish,” she said.
The defendant, who opted to give evidence, told the jury that on the day in question he had tried to feed, burp and cuddle the child without success.
When the infant remained upset, he called the child’s mother to return and said he became frustrated with himself.
He told jurors he put the baby in the bassinet and remained nearby.
“I suggest [he] gets a gold star for how he handled [the child] on July 16,” Mrs Stevens said.
The court heard the baby settled when its mother came home to breastfeed, they later went for a walk and three neighbours handled the child later that day.
No one noticed anything amiss, Mrs Stevens stressed.
It was only if the jury was unconvinced by his version of events that they needed to consider the medical evidence.
The Crown’s medical experts all said there was no scientific explanation for the extensive injuries, which meant they were likely inflicted by trauma.
Mrs Stevens said that was “incorrect reasoning” and she urged great caution in considering their collective testimony.
She also pointed jurors to the baby’s severe vitamin-D deficiency, which had been written off as inconsequential by prosecution experts.
“What’s indisputable is you have to have vitamin D for bone strength. It’s vital stuff,” she said.
Radiologist Dr Julie Mack gave a common-sense, alternative explanation, Mrs Stevens suggested.
She told the court the infant’s rib fractures may have occurred at birth and been so microscopic they were not displaced until later and thus the evidence of healing, seen when he was later admitted to hospital, was delayed.
Ultimately, Mrs Stevens said, it was about the defendant and who he was at his essence.
“This is a gentle man. He’s universally considered to be a caring man. He’s known for how good he is with children,” she said.
“There is not one iota of evidence that he would direct his frustration at the child.”
The Crown’s closing argument
The Crown says the only reasonable explanation for a baby’s broken bones is that they were inflicted by a prominent sportsman.
The Dunedin District Court trial for the defendant – who has interim name suppression – comes on the back of him pleading not guilty to a charge of injuring by reckless disregard and an alternative assault charge.
He was with the child on July 16, 2023 and it is alleged his frustration boiled over and he inflicted a “crushing” force while the infant’s mother was at the gym.
The lengthy court case is reaching its conclusion as Crown prosecutor Robin Bates gave his closing address today.
He said the child’s fractures – up to a dozen broken ribs, and a broken clavicle – formed a vertical line rather than scattered sporadically as may be the case in an accident.
A prosecution expert said it was indicative of a baby being gripped and squeezed.
“You might think that makes a lot of sense” Mr Bates said.
“Big hands, strong hands, small baby.”
Mr Bates said there had been a build up of pressure in the preceding days as the baby’s mother was frustrated at not being able to get some time out.
When she returned from the gym on the day in question, the defendant was visibly frustrated.
While the sportsman said he was upset with himself at being unable to settle the child, Mr Bates suggested the issues had resulted in a moment of “pure frustration”.
“Everybody can lose the plot,” he said.
Mr Bates urged the jury to reject the assertion the child’s injuries could have been caused during birth.
He referred to the evidence of Starship Hospital’s Dr Russell Metcalfe – a paediatric radiologist working at the “coal face”.
“If there were birth injuries there would’ve been signs of healing . . . at the time the fractures were first seen,” Mr Bates said.
“Whatever people tell you, this is not a birth injury.”
The prosecutor also pointed to the evidence from geneticist Professor Stephen Robertson who ruled out a bone-weakness disorder to “a very high degree of likelihood”.
The baby’s significant vitamin-D deficiency became a point of great contention during the trial.
A prolonged lack of the vitamin can cause rickets, which in turn leads to weakened bones.
But Mr Bates cited the evidence of paediatric endochrinologist Professor Ben Wheeler, who said the deficiency was common in babies born in the south, and further, said there was no biochemical evidence of rickets in the infant.
A simple lack of vitamin D alone did not affect bone strength, he said.
The defence medical experts, Mr Bates said, had veered outside their areas of expertise and had strayed into advocacy.
The court heard during the trial the unsettled baby would only sleep on its mother and, while she did not recall a specific incident, she suggested she may have rolled over and crushed the child during her sleep-deprived state.
That was just something that had been “put in her head”, Mr Bates suggested.
The trial had lasted a “very long” three weeks and the transcript of evidence had stretched beyond 1000 pages, Mr Bates said.
He acknowledged the jury had been bombarded with medical evidence but stressed none of the defence theories were reasonable explanations for the broken bones.
Mr Bates also warned jurors not to be swayed by sympathy, particularly for the defendant or “the family [of the child] in the middle of a nightmare”.
They needed to approach their task “coolly, calmly, objectively”, he said.