Media Release 17 November 2014
An independent legal analysis of court cases involving prosecutions for smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed has found that the anti-smacking law is complicated, difficult to apply, and lower courts are getting it wrong.

The analysis by Public Law Specialists Chen Palmer also says that 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.
<<READ THE FULL LEGAL ANALYSIS>>

The review of cases by prominent constitutional lawyer Mai Chen was obtained by Family First NZ which has been campaigning against the law and calling for amendments to protect good families and parents.

“With the amount of time and investment that Family First has invested in this issue over the past 7 years in order to protect good parents from a flawed law, we felt it was time to get a completely independent expert legal opinion of whether our concerns held any merit. Our concerns and efforts to get the law fixed have been completely justified,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

———————————————————————————————
“This (case) shows that although Mr DC had only “lightly” smacked his
sons on the odd occasion, he had nevertheless committed a crime
and was not protected by the new section 59….”

“Mr Young was therefore convicted for his actions in “lightly” smacking
his daughter….”
Legal Analysis – Chen Palmer
———————————————————————————————

“It also flies in the face of assertions made by the Prime Minister John Key, the police, and the ‘Latta Review’ which argued that none of the cases highlighted by Family First to ‘bolster their argument that good parents were being made into criminals for smacking stood up to scrutiny’. The Review has again been proved to be worthless.”

Key statements in the Opinion also include:

An analysis of section 59 and the relevant case law shows that non-lawyers, including parents and the Police, struggle to understand and apply section 59. The cases also demonstrate that even lawyers and judges struggle to apply section 59 correctly, with examples of cases going to the District Court, the High Court and then being overturned by the Court of Appeal.”

Case law confirms that the section 59 amendment has criminalised the use of force by a parent against their child for the purposes of correction.”

Parents will struggle to know whether their actions constitute an offence under section 59 or not, and in cases of doubt, the police will prosecute and leave it up to the Court to determine. This is demonstrated in the cases we have analysed.”

The law is complicated and difficult to apply, such that even the lower courts are getting it wrong.”

Smacking a child for the purpose of correction is illegal regardless of whether the Police decide to prosecute or not.” – despite John Key telling parents that a light smack is ok.

Family First will now ask the government to honour their promise that if good parents were criminalised, they would change the law. Family First will also seek further legal advice on challenging the law.
———————————————————————————————-
“The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have
had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it –
which has now been shown to be patently false.”
Family First NZ
———————————————————————————————

“It is disappointing that the politicians have been so quick to mislead kiwi families,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The smacking law has been so bereft of success that supporters have had to commandeer a claim that no-one has been prosecuted by it – which has now been shown to be patently false.”
ENDS

MEDIA RELEASE

20 January 2014

Family First NZ says that the Prime Minister is now misrepresenting the facts relating to smacking prosecutions. The Dominion Post and the Sunday Star Times have already had to print corrections because of misrepresenting these facts.

“A number of media outlets and editorials claimed that police have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in and that seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face. This was completely wrong and misleading. The Prime Minister is now repeating the myth (Radio Live this morning). It is also disappointing that the police are not speaking up about the incorrect information, and we wonder why not,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“This means that John Key’s judgment of the working of the law is based on wrong information. This is either to justify not taking action on fixing the law, or the Prime Minister is continuing to receive wrong advice.”

According to the police reviews on the law, smacking is defined as ‘a slap with the open hand on the buttocks or legs that does not result in any form of injury’. The police claim that ‘”smacking” in itself is not an offence.’ A minor act of physical discipline is defined as ‘a slap with the open hand on any other part of the body (including the face) that does not result in any form of injury’. There have been 46 prosecutions for minor acts of physical discipline, and 8 for smacking.

“But what is significant is the prosecutions for smacking which the police and the politicians say will not be prosecuted.”

According to the police reviews:

1. One smacking event was prosecuted, but subsequently withdrawn when the primary witness declined to give evidence. 3rd review

2. One prosecution – no details provided by police. 6th review

3. Child was smacked on leg. 7th review

4. Child was smacked on the buttocks with no physical injury. 8th review

5. Child was smacked on the buttocks with no physical injury. 9th review

6. Father allegedly slapped his daughter on her lower leg, causing her to cry but leaving no injury – withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. 10th review

7. Child smacked around the upper thighs, leaving no injuries. 10th review

8. Father smacked his two sons on their legs in a public place, resulting in no injuries. 10th review

“Parents will be surprised by the types of actions which the police are taking to court – despite the guarantees of the Prime Minister that a smack is ok – a claim reiterated this morning on Radio Live. Almost 600 kiwi families have had a police investigation for allegations of smacking or minor acts of physical discipline since the anti-smacking law was passed yet only 9% of them have been serious enough to warrant charges being laid,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“A law is obviously a ‘dog’s breakfast’ when there is such a high rate (90%-plus) of cases warranting no further action by the police. Yet for these ‘good parents’, the experience will have been hell.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/email-updates/

MEDIA RELEASE

20 April 2013

A Smack as Part of Good Parental Correction Works – Study

Family First NZ says that a study just published shows that smacking does no harm as long as the child knows it is for the right reasons and feels loved – contrary to politicians in New Zealand criminalising these parents.

The study of teenagers by a team from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and published in the journal Parenting: Science and Practice, found the effects of discipline – such as verbal threats or smacking – are offset by the child’s feeling of being loved. The researchers said being punished is unlikely to result in antisocial behaviour further down the line, as long as the child believes their punishment is coming from “a good place”.

They said

“Maternal warmth protected adolescents from the negative effects of harsh discipline such that, at higher levels of maternal warmth, there was no relation between harsh discipline and externalising problems.”

“Attachment theory suggests that warm, responsive parenting is the critical factor in producing securely attached children who, in turn, develop positive secure internal working models of their parents. Children then interpret subsequent parental behaviors, including discipline attempts, through the context of a warm and secure parent–child relationship. Mothers high on warmth demonstrate positive affect and supportive and accepting behaviors which promote a stable and global belief in the child that their parents love them.”

It also says anti-smacking policies are problematic because they contradict many adults’ own childhood experiences with discipline and their long-term outcomes, and this study demonstrates one condition under which discipline does not result in negative outcomes for the child in later life.

“This study joins what the researchers refer to as ‘emerging theoretical and empirical evidence’ which challenges the academic and political view that smacking is child abuse and should be banned. The people of New Zealand were able to figure that out. Unfortunately our politicians couldn’t,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

A recent survey of 1,000 NZ’ers found that three out of four people back a law change to allow “correctional” smacking of children. They were also asked whether they would still smack their child to correct behaviour, despite the law. Two out of three respondents, or 68 per cent, said they would.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/email-updates/

18 March 2013

National Voters Want Smacking Law Change – Poll

A poll of New Zealanders has found that 3 out of 4 voters want the anti-smacking law amended, and the support is strongest from National, NZ First and Maori party voters.

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked “Do you think the anti-smacking law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law? 77% of respondents back a law change to allow correctional smacking. 86% of National voters supported a change in the law. Only 12% of respondents thought the law change had had any effect on the rate of child abuse, with Green voters surprisingly being most sceptical.

The poll also found support for any party that pledged to change the law, with 30% of respondents saying they are more likely to vote for a party that promised to change the law, and 22% less likely. For National voters, there was a 17% net gain (38% more likely, 21% less likely). For Labour votes, there was a 4% net loss.

Two out of three respondents said they would flout the law and smack their child to correct their behaviour if they thought it was reasonable to do so. Once again, ‘smackers’ were most likely to be National and NZ First voters, followed by Labour voters.

“Politicians probably hoped that the opposition to the anti-smacking law would eventually disappear, but this poll simply reiterates that the law is being disrespected and flouted, is seen of no real value, and a political party who promises to fix the law will benefit in the polling booth,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

The nationwide poll was carried out during February and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

FULL POLL RESULTS http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ANTI-SMACKING-LAW-2013-POLL.pdf

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

MEDIA RELEASE

24 August 2012

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review

A Timaru couple whose experience of the anti-smacking law was used in the Prime Minister’s report on Section 59 by psychologist Nigel Latta, and whose integrity and honesty was called in to question along with a number of other parents, now have the government paperwork to prove that the report is based on false information, and are demanding an apology.

The parents’ experience has been featured both in NZ on the documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal”, and on 60 Minutes in Australia.

Parents Erik and Lisa Peterson whose children were removed from their home for 72 hours because of a botched CYF investigation over a smack have fought for over three years for the truth to be told. In their letter to Nigel Latta, they say:

“Your summary was based on our case file, and we took a great deal of issue with it. We also took great issue with you calling our integrity and honesty into question, albeit indirectly, on national television. You will by now have received a letter from the Ministry of Social Development containing a number of corrections to the error ridden file that you based that summary on. (Review panelist and MSD Head) Peter Hughes says your summary was accurate because you read our case file – the same case file which required a staggering two and a half pages of corrections! ….

“Mr. Latta, the section 59 Review states that you found “the agencies responded appropriately and proportionately” in each of the cases. I cannot speak for anyone else, but our family was not treated appropriately or proportionately. CYF were responsible for at least three breaches of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 in the investigation of our family. Until very recently, they were also in breach of the Privacy Act. Hardly appropriate behaviour. We lost our children for 72 hours because the local workers couldn’t be bothered to meet on a Friday afternoon. Hardly an appropriate or proportional response.

“It is my view that you owe our family an apology. I would suggest our experience is not unique among those families reviewed. It is most probable that you owe several families an apology.

“With hope of closure after a three and a half year battle. Erik and Lisa Petersen”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ adds: “The Latta review contained glaring errors including misrepresentation of basic facts, contained alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive, and failed to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow the voices of families who had been victims of the new law to be heard. It also failed to examine the outcomes of the investigations and whether the law was being applied as Parliament intended. It clearly is not.”

A group of parents, whose experiences were included in the report, released a statement immediately after the Prime Minister and Nigel Latta presented the report in 2009, saying

“This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides. We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area. Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns. We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts. The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.”

“The Peterson’s have sought to set the record straight. We will be encouraging other parents misrepresented in the report to do likewise,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Official Information Act documentation requested by Family First seems to indicate that the review involved only two meetings of the full panel, ‘rides in a cop car’, sitting at the Police Communications Centre for a couple of hours, and misinterpreting and misrepresenting cases put forward by us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “New cases are being brought to our attention on a regular basis – many of which have been featured in the media.”

The full evidence of the Petersen case and four others can be viewed here www.protectgoodparents.org.nz

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/email-updates/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Needing help for your home schooling journey:

http://hef.org.nz/2011/needing-help-for-your-home-schooling-journey-2/

And

Here are a couple of links to get you started home schooling:

http://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/

and

http://hef.org.nz/exemptions/

This link is motivational:
http://hef.org.nz/2012/home-schooling-what-is-it-all-about/

Please read this link before reading the report below:

https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2012/parents-demand-apology-for-inaccurate-smacking-review/

******************************************

Police has published its tenth review of activity following enactment of the Crimes (Substituted s 59) Amendment Act 2007.
This review covers the period 22 June to 21 December 2011.

500 child assault events were attended by police during this period.  Of these, 23  events involved ‘smacking’ and 45 involved ‘minor acts of physical discipline’. (See note 2 below for definitions)

Of the 23 ‘smacking’ events, 3 resulted in prosecution, 18 resulted in a warning and 2 resulted in other / no further action being taken. Of the 45 ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ events, 6 resulted in prosecution, 36 resulted in warnings and 3 resulted in other / no further action being taken.

The three “smacking” event prosecutions involved a charge of Assaults Child (Manually). The first defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months supervision. The second pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months supervision and 100 hours community work. The remaining prosecution was subsequently withdrawn due to insufficient evidence.

There have now been 8 prosecutions for a ‘smacking’ event since enactment of the Amendment in June 2007.

Assistant Commissioner, Malcolm Burgess says the review findings continue to be consistent with previous reviews.

“We continue to be happy with the way the legislation is being applied by police staff” says Mr Burgess.

“Numbers of events in most of the categories, including smacking have trended up. We attribute this to the more widespread use of the legislation by police as it becomes embedded in our enforcement practices and also to increased reporting as public awareness of the legislation grows.

“There have been just eight prosecutions for smacking events since the Amendment was enacted in June 2007. This suggests the practice guidelines on this matter issued by the Commissioner continue to work well and police continue to apply their discretion appropriately in these cases”.

Police will continue to report on the impact of the Amendment through until June 2012 with the final report due to be completed by the end of 2012.

Editors note:
(1) Further details of the 10th review can be found on the NZ Police website. http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/resources/10-review-section-59.pdf

(2) The number of child assault events identified in each review period does not reflect the total number of child assault events attended by police during this time. The events are those most likely to identify
• Actual physical action used in the child assault; and
• The context and the surrounding circumstances, as outlined in the practice guidelines (Commissioners Circular).

(3) Following the December 2009 review Police agreed to continue monitoring the impact of the Amendment on a six monthly basis until June 2012. Further details of the review can be found at:
www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf

(4) The practice guide (Commissioner’s Circular) on this issue released in June 2007 can be found on the police website:
www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Needing help for your home schooling journey:

http://hef.org.nz/2011/needing-help-for-your-home-schooling-journey-2/

And

Here are a couple of links to get you started home schooling:

http://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/

and

http://hef.org.nz/exemptions/

This link is motivational:
http://hef.org.nz/2012/home-schooling-what-is-it-all-about/