Mark Henaghan: Auckland University law professor on the senior police officer who allegedly beat his children with a belt

A law expert says it was assault when a senior police officer hit his children with a belt. 

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found the North Island officer struck his three children multiple times, on their lower body.

He admitted using his belt to 're-set' his kids - and has been censured by police for serious misconduct.

Auckland University law professor Mark Henaghan says criminal proceedings couldn't go ahead because neither the parent or children would give evidence.

"Liz Gunn just taps someone on the shoulder and gets charged with assault - this is hitting kids with a belt and nothing has happened." 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ryan Bridge, a senior police officer who hit his children
with a belt on at least three separate occasions, will
not face criminal charges and he's keeping his job. He
was censured by an employment investigation. This is by the
police force, but the IPCA they say the sanctions not
good enough. The police couldn't charge him, they reckon because

(00:21):
of a lack of evidence. The officer in question refuse
to allow his children to be interviewed for evidential purposes
and refuse to be interviewed himself. Mark Henahan is an
Orkland University law professor. He's with me tonight.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Hi Mark, Hi Ryan, Love to be talking with you
again and to you.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Too, Mark. How do you prosecute a child a potential
child abuse case If the parent can say no, my
child doesn't give permission to be interviewed, or I don't
give permission, and the adult can say they don't give
permission either.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Well, I think the way it works. I mean basically,
as you know, anyone who is going to be questioned
by the police as a right to science, they didn't
have to answer questions, and in some situations they may
to give their name and address. But there is a
provision in a rang of tamaricki and the police could
have used it. If it's a situation where the child's
at great risk, they can get a warrant to root

(01:13):
the child and obscurring at Tamberiki, I think in the
case felt that the children were safe, which was surprised.
But they said that the children were safe. So I
suppose they say, because they're guardians to the children, saying
we're not going to let you take away the children
to interview them. And it's kind of tricky in a
way because I suppose the children themselves would feel that
dobbing and dad not the greatest thing they could that

(01:35):
they would be doing. But there was other evidence, I thought.
I mean, obviously a rang of tamariki got evidence from
the children talking to them. They said it happened, So
I don't see why they couldn't use that. I mean,
even though it's secondhand, to some degree, the children did
say to a ring of tabariki, that's why the ranger
Tamriki knew about him and still thought the children were safe.
Exactly what what you just said. The children had been used.

(01:56):
They else had been used on them. So because in
some ways it is hard to sort of put pressure
on children to to give evidence against our parents. I
can understand and pitically when they had a belted ust case.
No totally, so not evidence they could have got because
it seemed to be other rang Mariki said quite clear
that that this had happened and the children had told

(02:17):
them that. Yes, so the reason that they couldn't that's
evidence from it?

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Are you saying, Mark, Are you saying if the in
a case where auditing a timody key decreed that the
children were unsafe in the house in that instance, then
the children would be able to be interviewed and that
would be evidential.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Well, they could remove the children in that case if
as risk of the children, they can remove the get
a warrick. But even in this case, because of ranging
Mariki had found out and felt the children was there
was some evidence and I think you know it would
be challenged because it's textually here so it's not the
children talking themselves. But the court may well accept because
it can in certain circumstances say that in this case

(03:00):
the children did say to us a belt had been
used on them, and that would be sufficient evidence for
a court if it ever accepted to say, well, that's
evidence to prove that there has been a Sultan's case
because it's clear assault. I mean, the interesting thing about
this case is Liz Can just taped someone on the
shoulder and chatted with the whole look in the district

(03:20):
court and overall by the High Court. This is haitting
kids with the belt and nothing has happened. Yeah, it's
a good point contrasting.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
It's a good point.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
Mark.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
We have to leave it there. That's Mark Kenahan, his
Augland University's law professor with us. This very sad case
for the for the kids involved, the parents, both parents
actually not speaking to police. For more from Hither Duplessy
Allen Drive, listen live to news talks. It'd be from
four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio