A prominent criminal lawyer has been convicted of assaulting his 12-year-old son during a boxing session that left the child hospitalised for three nights. The case, which took more than four years to reach sentencing, raises serious questions about accountability, privilege, and the systems meant to protect our most vulnerable.
The offending occurred in April 2022 at the family home. According to court documents obtained by RNZ, the lawyer and his son were boxing on a concrete area behind the house. The summary of facts paints a harrowing picture: a fully grown man, facing a small-built, 38kg child, both wearing boxing gloves.
The lawyer struck the boy's head, causing bleeding. The child pleaded, 'Please stop. I am serious.' The punches continued to the face and stomach. The boy cried and fell to the ground. Still, the blows kept coming until the child gasped that he could not breathe. Only then did the father stop, and the boy jumped the fence to escape.
What injuries did the child sustain?
The boy was taken to hospital with suspected fractures to his cheekbone and a perforated liver. While scans ruled those out, he suffered extensive bruising to his head and ears, a cut above his eye, and was admitted for three nights of observation. The physical wounds will heal, but the psychological scars of such a betrayal of trust may last a lifetime.
Why did the sentencing take so long?
Judge Savage described the case moving through the courts at a 'glacial pace'. The first hearing was in April 2022, yet the lawyer pleaded guilty only during trial, after his son had already given evidence. The judge called the lawyer's claim that he hadn't seen his son's statement until trial 'implausible'.
At sentencing, the man's lawyer, Michael Sandom, spoke of the 'embarrassment and shame' his client felt appearing before colleagues and peers. 'He is not a perfect person, but none of us are,' Sandom said. 'He knows the mistake that he made, he is remorseful for what occurred.'
The Crown opposed a discharge without conviction, and Judge Savage agreed, noting the aggravating factors of the victim's age and the profound breach of trust. However, the judge did grant final name suppression, meaning the lawyer's identity remains protected.
Can a lawyer convicted of assault keep practising?
This case raises uncomfortable questions about professional accountability. The lawyer has been practising for over a decade, and RNZ asked the New Zealand Law Society how he was able to continue working while the matter was before the court.
A spokesperson explained that a lawyer with a current practising certificate who is found guilty of criminal offending is not automatically suspended. Concerns must first be considered by independent Standards Committees, which may refer matters to the Disciplinary Tribunal if the conduct is 'sufficiently serious'. Only the tribunal can order suspension or strike a lawyer off the roll.
The Ministry of Justice added that legal aid providers must notify them within five working days if charged with or convicted of an imprisonable offence. The ministry may then impose restrictions, modify or cancel approval, or refer matters to the Law Society.
What does this mean for our justice system?
This case exposes uncomfortable truths about how we treat those with power and connections. A man who used his knowledge of the legal system to delay proceedings, who continued to practise law while facing serious charges, and who assaulted his own child in a moment of violence, will keep his name protected.
Meanwhile, a 12-year-old boy had to relive his trauma in court, giving evidence against his own father. The system moved at a pace that the judge himself called 'glacial'.
We must ask ourselves: is name suppression serving the interests of justice, or merely protecting the reputations of the privileged? And what message does it send to victims of family violence when a convicted abuser can continue to work as a lawyer, representing others in the criminal justice system?
The judge noted he did not see the lawyer as a risk of reoffending, and that the man loved his son 'with all your heart'. But love and violence are not mutually exclusive, and our systems must be robust enough to hold even the most powerful to account.
As we reflect on this case, we should consider what true accountability looks like. Not just in the courtroom, but in the professional bodies that regulate our lawyers, and in a society that too often looks away when violence happens behind closed doors.