Man cleared of assaulting his daughter

A Whitianga man has been acquitted of assaulting his daughter in Luggate last October.

David Vivian Owers (51), construction supervisor, was charged with assault in a family relationship following an incident at his property in the township on October 24.

At a judge-alone trial in the Queenstown District Court yesterday, Judge John Brandts-Giesen heard evidence about an altercation involving the defendant, his then 17-year-old daughter and her friend.

Summarising that evidence, Judge Brandts-Giesen said the complainant had been living with her father in Luggate for about two weeks before the incident because her relationship with her mother, with whom she had been living, had broken down.

The defendant had taken leave from his job in Whitianga to settle her into his house in the Upper Clutha township, but on the day before the incident, he told her she could no longer live there because she had failed to abide by his ground rules.

However, on October 24 about 1am, she and a friend went to the house with the intention of sleeping there.

The defendant stood in the doorway and told them they were not welcome, but they managed to get in after the complainant kicked him in the groin.

She alleged her father then forcibly removed them from the house and, as she lay by the front door, punched her in the head.

She also claimed he kicked her two or three times to her body, pushed her face into the ground and then shoved her down the outside stairs.

Later that day she told another friend about the incident, who laid a complaint with the police.

In his decision, Judge Brandts-Giesen said the defendant was entitled to bar his daughter from living in the house.

Although he could have handled the situation better, he had used "reasonable force" to remove the young women from his house.

There was no physical evidence the complainant had been punched, kicked or had her face pushed into the ground as she had claimed.

The complainant had appeared to give evidence to the best of her ability, but had frequent memory lapses that affected its "reliability and veracity".

Therefore, he had "reasonable doubt" the defendant had committed the offence as she had alleged.

 

Advertisement

OUTSTREAM