Struggling to grasp discharge without conviction

A 25YEAROLD man, Benjamin Sorensen, headbutts an 18yearold in a bar in an unprovoked attack — unless requesting an apology, because Sorensen accidentally knocked a glass out of the victim’s hand, may constitute provocation.

It knocks him unconscious, fracturing the roots of two front teeth and needing 20 stitches to his gums and mouth (ODT, 27.1.21).

Sorensen is discharged without conviction on the basis that a conviction for violence might result in rejection of his application to the Dental Council of New Zealand for registration.

His professors describe him as a ‘‘worthy recipient’’ of three scholarships and a man of ‘‘very high moral and ethical principles’’.

They clearly do not know the meaning of the words. I would describe Sorensen’s actions as those of a vicious thug.

Why was the Dental Council not asked whether this man could be registered if convicted, and, for example, required to work under supervision for a period and given counselling for anger management?

And an offer made by either the Dental Council or the Dental School to provide free, ongoing care for the victim, and the best possible treatment (implants, for example) for him in the years to come if needed?

Sorensen was asked to pay the victim $2000 — that will barely get you through the door of most dental practices these days.

Will ACC pay the full cost of the best treatment to the victim? There is also the ongoing pain, inconvenience and disfigurement involved in treatment to top front teeth.

Of all people, a dental student should anticipate the effects of a headbutt, and he is therefore even more culpable in this case.

What exactly would he need to have done in order to be convicted? It appears that there is one rule for ‘‘professionals’’ and one rule for the rest.

Nicky Conroy

Upper Hutt

Reunion

St Hilda’s Collegiate School: 125th anniversary, March 1921. Contact aburke@shcs.school.nz or phone the school (03) 4770989 to register.