A MAN was kicked, punched, beaten with a shoe and had his head rammed into a car during a vicious attack over a missing computer, an Ipswich court heard.
The victim was at his home in Silkstone when Raymond Bryan Mason, 27, came to his front door with a mate and demanded to speak with him.
Ipswich Magistrates Court heard the pair had been friends, but after a falling out Mason went to the address to confront him about some missing personal belongings.
The victim was in the backyard and Mason went back there, where he and his friend unleashed a "violent and vicious attack", during which Mason's friend did most of the beating, but he just stood by.
Mason's friend started the assault by punching the victim to the head repeatedly, and then kicked him in the chest him while he was on the ground.
While down, the victim couldn't see who was doing the most damage to him, but when he dragged himself up Mason punched him in the spine and knocked him down again.
The co-accused then grabbed him in a headlock and rammed his face into a parked car.
He picked up a shoe and repeatedly bashed the victim to the head, before his girlfriend heard a fight outside and came out to intervene.
She told both to leave the property - Mason fled first, followed shortly by the co-offender. The victim was treated at Ipswich Hospital for abrasions and lacerations to his head, mouth, back, chest, knees and elbows.
Mason pleaded guilty to assault occasioning bodily harm in company, which occurred in early 2011, and was sentenced to three months jail, wholly suspended for 12 months.
He was also ordered to pay $500 compensation to the victim and $314.50 to fix the car. Mason, who had no history for violence at all, had an impeccable work record.
Magistrate Donna MacCallum said when reading references tendered on behalf of Mason, it was if his referees were "talking about someone else".
"It was a violent and vicious attack, and you stood there - arguing over a computer is no excuse," she said.
Defence lawyer Matthew Fairclough said most of the violence had been rendered by the principal offender, but his client had "made a serious error of judgement by not stepping in to stop it".
Update your news preferences and get the latest news delivered to your inbox.