Back in January this year (2019) a male person was arrested for hitting his son with a weapon (belt) across the forehead. The child was 9 years of age and was questioned by the South Australian Child Protection Authority before being advised to go with his mother and repeat what had happened to the Police.
After giving evidence it was decided that it was a serious enough offence to arrest the father who sub sequentially made bail until the trial was heard in March. At which time the person did not plead because the case was adjourned because the lawyer for the accused believed that the mother would not proceed with the case. This did in fact happen, she withdrew her sons statement and the Police had to with draw the case because lack of evidence, however the Police placed an AVO on the accused so he acted in a proper manner.
Now some five months later the accused father admitted to a psychologist that he did in fact hit the child with a belt across the buttocks but not on the face even though photographic evidence shows the child with marks and slight bruising across the forehead.
Can the case be reopened
After giving evidence it was decided that it was a serious enough offence to arrest the father who sub sequentially made bail until the trial was heard in March. At which time the person did not plead because the case was adjourned because the lawyer for the accused believed that the mother would not proceed with the case. This did in fact happen, she withdrew her sons statement and the Police had to with draw the case because lack of evidence, however the Police placed an AVO on the accused so he acted in a proper manner.
Now some five months later the accused father admitted to a psychologist that he did in fact hit the child with a belt across the buttocks but not on the face even though photographic evidence shows the child with marks and slight bruising across the forehead.
Can the case be reopened
Last edited:
