His lawyer, Avina Tu’inukuafe, argued a conviction would impact Sandoval’s ability to secure a job in the future.
‘The victim squared up at him’
The court heard how Sandoval was in the Hamilton CBD at 2.40am with a friend.
At the same time, the victim and his partner, who were not known to Sandoval, were also in town.
Sandoval told a presentence report writer that when the groups crossed paths, the victim yelled “derogatory, racial slurs” at him and was aggressive.
The victim “squared up” at Sandoval, effectively “inviting the defendant to fight”, Judge Arthur Tompkins said.
Juan Manuel Leon Sandoval’s case was heard in the Hamilton District Court.
Also around that time, the victim’s partner got between the two men and kicked Sandoval in the stomach, to which he retaliated, the court heard.
Sandoval and his friend then walked away.
They walked away from the victim a further four times, as the victim continued to run after Sandoval and his friend, trying to start a fight.
On the sixth occasion, the pair did fight, a result which Judge Tompkins said the “victim was bent on creating”.
“Although, perhaps because of the effect of the alcohol on both protagonists, many of the initial kicks and punches missed.”
Sandoval eventually connected with a punch, which caused both of them to fall to the ground.
He got up first and then kicked the victim twice, but it remained unclear where on the body those kicks landed.
Members of the public tried to break up the fight, as Sandoval kicked the victim in the head, causing him to lose consciousness.
The victim suffered cuts, grazes and a brain bleed.
‘He could have simply walked away’
Crown prosecutor Kasey Dillon submitted that while the victim was “by no means spotless” concerning his behaviour, it was Sandoval’s final kick to the head that was the most aggravating factor.
“He was no longer a threat to Mr Sandoval, and he took that opportunity to kick him in the head and render him unconscious.
“He could have simply walked away as he had previously tried to do.”
But the judge interjected, stating that Sandoval had already tried that five times.
“Having previously tried to walk away, that really wasn’t going to work, was it, because he tried that on a number of occasions and it hadn’t been effective in de-escalating the situation,” the judge told Dillon.
Dillon said he was not stepping away from that, but pursued his argument and added that the victim had ongoing issues with memory loss, sleep and that any impact of a conviction on Sandoval was “simply speculative”.
‘Extreme self-defence’
Tu’inukuafe submitted that the assault would not have happened but for the victim’s involvement.
“Mr Sandvoal’s offending can be described as extreme self-defence,” she said.
“As you have noted, he did try to walk away from the victim on multiple occasions.
“Our submission is really based on the fact that the victim’s involvement in this is significant.”
She accepted the victim was left injured, but said that had to be viewed in the full context of the incident.
Before the fight, Sandoval and his friend had walked “quite some distance” from the victim before he chased him again and lunged at Sandoval with a punch, Tu’inukuafe submitted.
She said the offending was opportunistic, Sandoval had not reoffended since that night, had good prospects of rehabilitation and had self-referred for counselling.
“He’s now in a position in his life … where he wants to make a meaningful contribution to society.”
Sandoval, who, despite being unemployed for the past seven months, had also managed to save $500 to offer the victim as an emotional harm payment.
Tu’inukuafe said her client was still young, and a conviction would hinder his ability to get a job in the future.
Judge Tompkins agreed with Tu’inukuafe‘s assessment of Sandoval having a low culpability, and said, given all of the factors involved, it was a case where the consequences on future job prospects, “are more acute than many others”.
In granting his application for a discharge without conviction, Judge Tompkins said he had not overlooked the injuries the victim suffered, but found that Sandoval had met the threshold required.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 11 years and has been a journalist for 22.