Man convicted of biting child
A SUFFOLK man was today found guilty of biting a child's arm.Daniel Ball was convicted at Ipswich Crown Court after a three-day trial.The jury brought back their guilty verdict to the charge of actual bodily harm shortly before lunchtime today.
A SUFFOLK man was today found guilty of biting a child's arm.
Daniel Ball was convicted at Ipswich Crown Court after a three-day trial.
The jury brought back their guilty verdict to the charge of actual bodily harm shortly before lunchtime today.
Ball, 27, is now due to reappear for sentencing at the court on December 17.
Giving evidence in his defence yesterday, Ball said he had been carrying the child up some stairs when its arm had flown into his mouth.
He insisted the child's arm had stayed in contact with his mouth for "just a second" and added: "I pulled the child's arm out of my mouth and carried on going upstairs."
- 1 Road near Ipswich town centre closed after crash involving motorcyclist
- 2 When will bins be collected in Ipswich this Bank Holiday weekend?
- 3 New independent baby shop opens in Ipswich
- 4 Man used drawstring from JD Sports bag to drag woman to the ground
- 5 'Fresh and timeless' Greek cuisine comes to Ipswich
- 6 'I am so excited': New store owner on his dream come true
- 7 When will the Red Arrows be flying over Suffolk today?
- 8 Jailed in Suffolk: The criminals put behind bars this week
- 9 See inside Ipswich home with stunning views of the town from own turret
- 10 Driver caught doing 64mph in 40mph section of A12
He accepted being responsible for causing the marks on the child's arm and added he had suffered a cut lip as a result of the child' s arm coming into contact with his mouth.
Ball, 27, of Low Road, Friston, has denied assaulting the child, causing actual bodily harm.
It has been alleged that Ball deliberately bit the child's arm after it had hit him in the mouth while playing up.
The court has heard the child had a 6cm area of bruising on the top of its arm and there was also evidence of individual teeth marks within the area of bruising.
An expert called by the prosecution said that in her opinion the injury to the child had been the result of a deliberate bite and could not have been caused accidentally.
But defence witness, Dr John Ritchie, said that in his opinion an accidental collision was a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for the child's injury.
He added that on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the highest, he felt the amount of force used to cause the mark on the child's arm had been four.
Dr Ritchie said individual injuries within the area of bruising could have been caused by Ball's teeth gliding over the skin on the child's arm when its limb had come into contact with his mouth.