Review shows current law protects children

Premier Anna Bligh has said that parents will continue to be punished for excessive violence towards their children after a major review into this area of Queensland law.

Premier Anna Bligh said that the Justice Department review of over 200 cases shows that the controversial section 280 of the criminal code - which allows “reasonable force” to be used for disciplining children - does not operate as a loophole protecting violent parents.

“What this exhaustive review has shown conclusively is that the current system works,” she said.

“There is no excuse for using excessive violence towards a child and under Queensland law there is nowhere for violent parents to hide.”

Ms Bligh and Attorney-General Kerry Shine said the review showed that section 280 of the Queensland Criminal Code was rarely used as a defence.

“I am confident that parents who assault their children will face the full force of the law,” said the Premier.

“At the same time, this review revealed some shocking cases involving parents using weapons or their fists to discipline or slapping their children about the head.

“This, of course, is a far cry from giving your child a smack on the bottom.

“It is not discipline, it is assault and appalling behaviour from any parent and police and the courts have responded accordingly.

“That was reflected in the court decisions where these parents were either found or pleaded guilty and were punished for their actions.”

The Premier said the Justice Department review showed that parents who use excessive force were being charged and penalised accordingly.

“There were some very genuine community concerns that Section 280 of the Code was able to be used by parents who had physically abused their children to claim that they did so in the course of disciplining them,” Ms Bligh said.

“But the review shows unequivocally that this is not the case. It shows the opposite in fact – that section 280 is not relied on to any significant degree as a defence.

“The review studied almost 200 cases where parents were charged during 2006-07 and found that Section 280 could have been possibly raised as a defence in just three cases. Not one of these three cases actually made it to court.”

Mr Shine said it was clear from the review findings that Section 280 did not provide an inappropriate defence to parents.

“Clearly if you use excessive force to discipline your child it is a criminal act not to mention morally bankrupt and what we have found is that parents guilty of this behaviour are punished,” Mr Shine said.

“It’s just not acceptable to hit a child about the face or the head or belt them with an instrument.

“Children are our most vulnerable citizens and assaults against them should be treated accordingly.

“The audit has demonstrated that a small number of parents in our community are making poor decisions in assaulting their children but they are not getting away with it.”

The review focused on 198 people who were charged in the 2006/07 period with parent/child assault.

The audit broke down the cases into three general assault categories – 29 were categorised as child abuse, 35 as domestic or family violence and 134 as excessive discipline.

Of the 134 excessive discipline cases, 23 were discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions due to a lack of evidence or a complainant not wanting to proceed and nine are yet to be finalised.

Of the remaining matters, 92.7 per cent of defendants pleaded guilty either in the District or Magistrates Court while in just two cases the defendants were acquitted.

These acquittals were not, however, based on a defence utilising Section 280.

“Clearly this shows that Section 280 of the Code was not relevant in the overwhelming majority of cases,” Mr Shine said.

“It was simply not raised as a defence and, although it’s disturbing there were so many cases involving excessive force brought before the courts, the great majority appropriately resulted in convictions and penalties.

“By pleading guilty to these assaults, these parents acknowledged they had no justification or excuse for engaging in excessive force and, even if their actions were for disciplinary purposes, the force they used was unreasonable.”

Media Contact 07 32244500