The Crown said the child had suffered broken bones and brain and eye bleeding.
As in: Oh Fer Fu**'s Sake.
This child was lucky not to have died and the jury let Boyton off with a limp wrested admonishment. Shame on them.
Judge Phillip Cooper said today the jury found it had not been proved that Boynton had deliberately injured the infant. His explanation for the injuries were that he may have handled him roughly during a nappy change or while jiggling the baby.
Does the perpetrator deserves another chance if they cry and say they are sorry?
He said it was obvious Boynton was ignorant and naive about the fragility of a new-born.
I was ignorant and naive about handling my firstborn. I also was naive about handling my premature twins. However, they were safe in my hands because I am not a kiddy basher. No-one ends up brain damaged in a normal household.
His pre-sentence report indicated he was at a low risk of reoffending, was upset and remorseful.
We all get a bit tearful after being found out. This doesn't mean he hasn't caused serious damage to a defenseless child.
At the trial, Crown prosecutor Chris Macklin said that when Boynton’s infant was taken to Rotorua Hospital in March 2010 he was found to have a broken arm, leg and thigh, a brain and eye bleed consistent with the child being shaken and some ribs had been broken, possibly about a fortnight earlier.
A paediatrician described the injuries as potentially life threatening and non-accidental.
As I stated: Who could possibly think someone who cried and proclaimed their innocence could be guilty?
Macklin said the victim was extremely vulnerable, the offending was serious and would normally lead to imprisonment.
Why didn't it? Because he had big teary eyes?
I ask you, the jury members. If this child sustained damage due to the handling by this man, given it is extremely hard to inflict deliberate damage. Why did you, the jury not pass the harshest of sentences down?