Well-dressed and visibly shaken, the woman clasped her hands tightly in front of her, releasing them only to wipe away tears.
The court was told she had been under immense stress at the time of the offending, and after, her son was taken into Oranga Tamariki for four weeks. Her employer also stood her down while an employment investigation took place.
She was highly qualified and well-respected in her profession, and there was a real risk she could lose her job and face deregistration if she were convicted, the court heard.
The woman appeared in New Plymouth District Court. Photo / Tara Shaskey
On that basis, defence lawyer Nina Laird applied for a discharge without conviction on behalf of the woman, who cannot be identified because of her son’s automatic name suppression.
Laird submitted there were significant mitigating circumstances, which reduced the gravity of the woman’s offending.
Police prosecutor Sergeant Lewis Sutton did not oppose the application, acknowledging the potential consequences if she were convicted.
‘Gave him the stick’
The court heard that the woman and her son were at their New Plymouth home when, around 8.30pm, she confronted the boy about eating food she had prepared for the week and about taking some of her money.
The boy denied the accusations and, in response, the woman picked up a wooden stick, about 60cm long and 2cm in diameter, and struck him with it between 30 and 40 times.
The force of the strikes left large, raised welts on the boy’s legs, buttocks, back, arms and hands.
He was in significant pain and struggled to walk as a result.
Police arrived at the address a short time after they were alerted to the beating and arrested the woman.
She was charged with injuring with intent to injure, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
The woman told police that her son had eaten food he was not meant to, so she “gave him the stick”.
‘Time will tell’
In arguing for the discharge without conviction, Laird acknowledged the seriousness of the offending and submitted her client was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder at the time.
The trauma-related symptoms stemmed from the woman’s background, which included family violence, neglect and poor social support as a child, Laird said.
She has no previous convictions and has made significant efforts to address her offending, including by completing parenting and preventing violence courses and attending counselling, it was submitted.
Laird said the woman did a lot of work for the community and her church, and was generally described as a kind, warm and easygoing person.
She submitted that the consequences of a conviction – potentially losing her job and career – were severe, making it out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, which she argued was reduced by the mitigating factors.
While the woman had been reinstated to her role, that could change depending on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the court heard.
The regulatory authority for the woman’s profession was also aware of the offending and may take action if a conviction were entered.
Oranga Tamariki took the boy from his parents’ care for four weeks.
Sutton accepted there could be significant consequences if the woman were convicted, and acknowledged the steps she had taken to better herself.
However, Sutton questioned how balanced the reports to the court were, noting that much of the woman’s background information was self-reported.
He also pointed to a section in the pre-sentence report that referred to a police investigation suggesting the boy had been subjected to significant assaults for multiple years by both parents.
Sutton said that had come up as part of the investigation, but police had focused on the one event.
“That is still in the background,” he said.
Laird said it was not accepted that there had been any assaults other than the one for which the woman had been charged.
Sutton acknowledged that Oranga Tamariki would have seriously considered the family’s circumstances before it returned the boy to his parents.
He said the future would reveal whether the woman had learned anything.
“Time will tell,” he said.
‘Respected in her profession’
After the submissions, Judge Turitea Bolstad introduced herself to the woman and her husband, who was seated in the public gallery.
She said she had “a lot” of information to support the application for a discharge without conviction, and told the woman to “breathe easy”, as she was going to grant it.
The judge proceeded to give her reasons, which included the woman’s background and the significant stress she had been under.
She noted there had also been a death and illness in the woman’s family and she was caring for her son, who was going through a challenging period, by herself at the time.
“This has all resulted in [the woman] responding inappropriately, and what I can make from the information before me, out of character,” Judge Bolstad said.
She accepted the assault was serious but found it had also been mitigated, including by the woman having done all she could to take responsibility and to get help.
The judge said the woman was “respected in her profession”, and accepted there was a real risk she would lose her employment and career if convicted.
This would have a significant impact on the woman and her family, the judge found.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Bolstad wished the woman well.
She left the dock in tears and hugged her husband in the gallery, sobbing loudly as she held him.
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.