A skilled immigrant who punched a pub bouncer, breaking his nose and chipping his tooth, has had his common assault conviction quashed because it could have led to his deportation.

High Court Justice Gendall quashed the conviction ruling the deportation threat was a punishment that was "out of all proportion" to his offending.

The man, who moved to New Zealand in 2012 and is a resident, punched a security officer in the face outside the Pegasus Arms pub on Oxford Terrace in Christchurch at 10.30pm on 20 February 2016.

The security guard needed reconstructive nose surgery and claims he suffered ongoing pain and sleep deprivation after the punch.

READ MORE:

* Judge 'wrong': Queenstown man gets conviction for assaulting friend, wife after finding love text

* Police officer investigated after off-duty assault claim

* Repeat drink-driver sentenced for double conviction in Blenheim

* Assault, theft convictions quashed

The man runs a construction firm in Christchurch that employs 19 people. He was convicted of common assault in July 2016 and sentenced to 60 hours of community work and ordered to pay $3400 in reparations.

Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway told him in November 2017 that the conviction meant he would be liable for deportation. But the deportation notice was suspended for five years.

The offender appealed the conviction to the High Court, arguing that he did not receive adequate legal advice about the immigration consequences of a common assault conviction. He would have applied for a discharge without conviction if he had known, his lawyer argued in the High Court appeal.

Justice Gendall ruled that the immigration consequences of the conviction were undue punishment. He ordered the conviction quashed, but said the community work and reparations, which had both been fulfilled, should remain.

"The consequences of conviction ... namely the threat for a period of five years, of possible deportation, are out of all proportion to [his] offending," the judge wrote in his ruling.

"It does appear that, in all the circumstances here, [his] offending, culminating in one charge of common assault and involving one punch to the face of the complainant, might at one level be seen as relatively minor, especially when considered against his otherwise good character."

"I acknowledge that this is a case about assault on a security officer at a bar and a significant public interest exists in discouraging this type of late night assault on a 'bouncer' simply doing his job."

"I accept, however, that this was a one-off incident at the lower end of the spectrum and that [he] is clearly remorseful and made a significant reparation repayment to redress the harm done, a payment accepted by the complainant. In my view, these are significant factors which go some way towards favouring a discharge."

The man could not be reached for comment.

* Comments have been closed.