A Canberra father has been acquitted of charges he punched and squeezed his four-month-old son so hard he fractured 13 ribs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But the man, who cannot be named to protect the child's identity, still faces charges of child neglect.
The acquittal, handed down on Friday, means the man has now been cleared of causing the child's injuries in early 2011.
The man stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court in November last year on two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Justice Refshauge on Friday acquitted the man of the remaining two alternate assault charges.
The baby, who is now in care, was taken to the Child Risk Assessment Unit at the Canberra Hospital in May, 2011.
Doctors found bruising on his abdomen, friction burns behind his ear, a superficial scratch under his chin and a small ulcer on his lip.
X-rays revealed 13 separate rib fractures, which a paediatrician said were consistent with a "deliberate inflicted injury".
During the trial, the doctor gave evidence that the injuries were likely caused by compression, in an application of force consistent with squeezing or pushing.
The paediatrician said the fractures were similar to those suffered in children who had had CPR.
The child's mother, from the witness stand in November, said she saw the accused shake and squeeze the baby in the abdomen, punch him in the stomach, and throw him across the room.
In his judgment, Justice Refshauge said he found reasonable doubt as to the father's guilt as the mother – the Crown's main witness – had changed her version of events on a number of occasions.
The judge said the mother had given a number of different accounts of the alleged abuse to a number of people.
She initially told police she had no idea how the baby suffered the injuries.
B but later claimed the father had assaulted the boy after they separated and she had been told her association with him would hurt her attempts to regain custody of the child.
She later said her failure to initially report the incidents were due to her fear of the man.
Justice Refshauge said he could not accept the mother's evidence as it contained internal inconsistencies and contradicted evidence of credible witnesses.
"In cross-examination, it became clear that [the mother] had difficulty in making a coherent version of events,'' the judge wrote.
"The events were unfolding in her evidence all the time with a fluidity that was strongly suggestive of versions being created to respond to questions rather than being remembered facts.
"It became clear that she embellished her evidence and that can be seen in the way her story came out.
"The fact is, however, that she had inevitably given perjured evidence: either she lied in her affidavit, which was perjury, or she lied to the court, which was perjury."
The man will appear on child neglect charges next month.
