KEY POINTS:
Police are dismissing claims that a controversial law change has made criminals of parents who lightly smack their children, after a man was convicted of assault for smacking his son.
The man, 33, who has permanent name suppression to protect the child's identity, was sentenced in the Masterton District Court this week to nine months' supervision, including parenting and anger-management courses.
The case is believed to be one of the first to come before the courts since a law change in May removed a parent's legal defence of using "reasonable force" for disciplining children.
The prosecutor in the case, Sergeant Garry Wilson, said police evidence included photos of bruises on the boy's shoulder and buttocks.
"It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.
"The family have said that it wasn't the first time," he added.
The man came home one night from work and was told that his 8-year-old son had been in trouble at school.
The summary of facts said: "Becoming angry, the defendant has grabbed the victim's clothes by his shoulder and pulled him up on to the bed.
"He has flipped the victim over his knee and struck the victim three times with an open palm on the buttocks, before roughly sitting him back up."
The man, who pleaded guilty, told police that he had lost his temper and overreacted.
The boy's mother was so concerned that she took photos of her son's injuries and showed them to a relative, who contacted police.
Judge Anthony Walsh said the man might have had a legal defence in the past, but that no longer applied.
"One time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now ... You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected."
The decision to prosecute has been praised by child advocacy groups and Green MP Sue Bradford, who put forward the amendment that repealed section 59 from the Crimes Act.
The amendment was criticised for potentially turning parents who lightly smack their children into criminals, but political opposition was mostly dropped after guidelines were added so that an "inconsequential" use of force would not be prosecuted.
Mr Wilson said police had to use discretion in each case, "but when there's injuries, it has to be put before the court, it has to be more than inconsequential".
The court action has prompted internet calls for the amendment to be scrapped. Andy Moore at section59.blogspot.com wrote that the father had gone "just a little bit over the top" but the case didn't warrant police action.
But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, a vocal critic of the amendment, conceded that any case resulting in bruising should be investigated. But he would not say whether he thought the Masterton case was a reasonable use of force.
The convicted man has previously appeared before the courts, but Mr Wilson did not know why.
The mother had told a court victims adviser the boy's schoolwork had suffered since the incident.
The child's parents were already attending expensive anger-management, parenting and relationship counselling, but under court-ordered supervision the state will now pay.
